Am 29.02.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Georgi D:
> On Monday, 29 February 2016 at 07:54:09 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>
>> The same procedure will then happen for vibe:http (the new package
>> will include HTTP/2 support) and the other sub packages.
>>
>
> This is great news. Will the new HTTP package support an endpoint
> address and transport abstraction so it can be used over Unix Domain
> sockets, Named/Annonymous pipes and other stream types?
>
> I have looked into implementing Unix Domain sockets support for
> vibe.d(more specifically the reverse proxy module) and noticed that
> enabling HTTP over UDS would be a fairly big and complicated change.
>
> Working on it is still on my todo list but if the the abstraction is
> going to change anyway I might wait until it has settled a bit.
>
> I am also willing to look and help with the abstractions before they are
> included in an official release if it would not interfere too much with
> your work.
>

It would be pretty straight forward to add a low-level HTTP protocol layer that works on an existing ConnectionStream. I'll keep that in mind.

On Monday, 29 February 2016 at 07:54:09 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 29.02.2016 um 00:47 schrieb sigod:
>> On Saturday, 27 February 2016 at 16:21:05 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> This is a small bugfix release that mainly fixes two critical
>>> regressions:
>>>
>>>  - FreeListRef!T, which is used heavily in the HTTP server code, stored
>>>    its reference count in an unallocated memory region, leading to
>>>    possible memory leaks or memory corruption
>>>
>>>  - A TCP connection with a non-empty write buffer that got closed by
>>>    the remote peer and locally at the same time could result in the
>>>    calling task to starve (i.e. it got never resumed after yielding
>>>    execution). In particular, this could happen when accessing HTTPS
>>>    servers with the HTTP client in conjunction with "Connection: close".
>>>
>>> http://vibed.org/blog/posts/vibe-release-0.7.28
>>
>> You forgot to update site header.
>
> Thanks, also forgot the documentation (even if nothing has changed).
>
>>
>> Is there any plans on when big split will happen?
>
> It will be a step-by-step process. I'm currently working on a new version of the `vibe.core` package that contains some large changes under the hood. Once that is in a functional state, I'll look into how to enable optional replacement of the existing vibe:core package by this new, separately hosted vibe-core package. vibe:core, at that point, will only receive bug fixes and continues to live for a while (let's say a year or one and a half).
>
> The same procedure will then happen for vibe:http (the new package will include HTTP/2 support) and the other sub packages.
>
> All of the new packages will get a version number of 1.0.0, once they can be considered reasonably stable.
>
> One unfortunate aspect of my current work on vibe-core is that I'm building on a new event loop abstraction that I built as a prototype to see where the performance bottlenecks of the current system are. libasync was too slow and it had a too complicated structure to make quick tests for improving performance. Now I'm leaning towards finalizing the new prototype library and proposing it for Phobos inclusion at some point.

Sönke, is your current work on core available somewhere?
Since my vibe.d related work isn't stable it wouldn't a problem to use unstable core-component. It is better than rewriting later if a lot of things change.

Am 10.03.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Eugene Wissner:
>
> Sönke, is your current work on core available somewhere?
> Since my vibe.d related work isn't stable it wouldn't a problem to use
> unstable core-component. It is better than rewriting later if a lot of
> things change.

It's still in a very early state (barely enough to run a TCP based server) and the user facing API will stay more or less backwards compatible. The main exceptions are that some callbacks will now have to be nothrow and/or @safe and that some types change from class to struct. So at this point I'd not recommend this for anything more than quick experiments and possibly as the basis for early feedback about certain API decisions:

https://github.com/vibe-d/