<div>After reading through the README, my vote is for a new "web-server2" collection and keep web-server frozen as is except to fix bugs. </div><div><br></div><div>The compatibility issues simply appear to be much more than an explicit make-xexpr-response call and will most likely cause breakage. This is the type of change that two parallel versions should be kept until it's clear everyone has a chance to migrate (and that can take a long while). </div> <div><br></div><div><div><div>I like the migration path from mzscheme to scheme to racket that all are still available and maintained. Except for the mutable pair issue that broke a few libraries, it was quite well managed. </div> <div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div> <div>yc</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Jay McCarthy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jay.mccarthy@gmail.com" target="_blank">jay.mccarthy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Here is my current plan:<div><br></div><div>Add web-server/compat/0 directory with, e.g., web-server/compat/0/http/response-structs to hold compatibility bindings to bridge the old http/response-structs and the new http/response-structs</div> <div><br></div><div>In that directory is the attached README.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you think?</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#888888">Jay</font></div></blockquote></div> </div></div> </div>