Rename a number of types and modules. #13
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Lukasa
force-pushed
the
cb-rename-modules-and-types
branch
from
5b90d1c to
2d4fae7
Compare
PeterAdams-A
reviewed
Jul 1, 2021
PeterAdams-A
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2021
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The top-level structured header field must identify what kind of header field it corresponds to: `.item`, `.list`, or `.dictionary`. This is inherent in the type of the field and will be specified in the relevant field specification. | ||
| The top-level structured header field value must identify what kind of header field it corresponds to: `.item`, `.list`, or `.dictionary`. This is inherent in the type of the field and will be specified in the relevant field specification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure why you've made the capitalisation different between this line and the one above but it was like that before.
glbrntt
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2021
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| HTTP Structured Header fields are a HTTP extension recorded in [RFC 8941](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941.html) . They provide a set of data types and algorithms for handling HTTP header field values in a consistent way, allowing a single parser and serializer to handle a wide range of header field values. | ||
| HTTP Structured Header Field Values are a HTTP extension recorded in [RFC 8941](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941.html) . They provide a set of data types and algorithms for handling HTTP header field values in a consistent way, allowing a single parser and serializer to handle a wide range of header field values. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| HTTP Structured Header Field Values are a HTTP extension recorded in [RFC 8941](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941.html) . They provide a set of data types and algorithms for handling HTTP header field values in a consistent way, allowing a single parser and serializer to handle a wide range of header field values. | |
| HTTP Structured Header Field Values are a HTTP extension recorded in [RFC 8941](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941.html). They provide a set of data types and algorithms for handling HTTP header field values in a consistent way, allowing a single parser and serializer to handle a wide range of header field values. |
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| `swift-http-structured-headers` has a simply, easy-to-use high-level API for working with structured header fields. To begin with, let's consider the [HTTP Client Hints specification](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8942.html). This defines the following new header field: | ||
| `swift-http-structured-headers` has a simply, easy-to-use high-level API for working with structured header field values. To begin with, let's consider the [HTTP Client Hints specification](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8942.html). This defines the following new header field: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| `swift-http-structured-headers` has a simply, easy-to-use high-level API for working with structured header field values. To begin with, let's consider the [HTTP Client Hints specification](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8942.html). This defines the following new header field: | |
| `swift-http-structured-headers` has a simple, easy-to-use high-level API for working with structured header field values. To begin with, let's consider the [HTTP Client Hints specification](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8942.html). This defines the following new header field: |
Motivation: In general we should try to be specific about what we're referring to. "Structured headers" is not really an accurate description of what this module works with: "Structured Header Field Values", or "Structured Field Value" is usually better. To that end this change adjusts our naming to be closer to what we want. It also changes our module names to prioritise the use of the Codable-based one. Modifications: - Renamed CodableStructuredHeaders to StructuredFieldValues. - Renamed StructuredHeaders to RawStructuredFieldValues. - Renamed a number of types from Field to FieldValue. - Renamed a number of types from Header to Field or FieldValue. - Renamed some functions along the above lines. Result: Better and more consistent terminology will be used.
Lukasa
force-pushed
the
cb-rename-modules-and-types
branch
from
2d4fae7 to
885ef64
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation:
In general we should try to be specific about what we're referring to.
"Structured headers" is not really an accurate description of what this
module works with: "Structured Header Field Values", or "Structured
Field Value" is usually better. To that end this change adjusts our
naming to be closer to what we want. It also changes our module names to
prioritise the use of the Codable-based one.
Modifications:
Result:
Better and more consistent terminology will be used.