Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[RFC] Writing a new, even more minimal implementation vs optimizing picoweb (with not backward compatible changes) #20

Open
pfalcon opened this issue Oct 31, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@pfalcon
Copy link
Owner

pfalcon commented Oct 31, 2017

There's growing need to make a choice for subj.

My idea: Writing another one only fragments the space. While a complete reimplementation may be needed eventually, doing incremental changes is almost always a better approach.

So, going to introduce a "breaking change" label to kinda pre-announce upcoming refactors: breaking change

@pfalcon pfalcon changed the title [RFC] Writing an new even more minimal implementation vs optimizing picoweb (with not backward compatible changes) [RFC] Writing a new, even more minimal implementation vs optimizing picoweb (with not backward compatible changes) Oct 31, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant