[Request] Using `http` crate types for `Response` etc.

[m00nwtchr]

I'm using several other crates that are meant to interoperate with the types provided by the http crate, which makes using them with crux_http difficult. Using the semi-standard Response/Request/etc. types from the http crate in crux would rectify that. Alternatively, Into/From implementations could provide a good enough experience via conversions (ideally non-copying).

[charypar]

This is definitely on our to-do list, but it would be quite a breaking change to crux_http, and will make providing a smooth migration path quite tricky.

It's likely we will first release a http compatible alternative capability, and then migrate crux_http.

On the Into / From front, that sounds like good short term patch. Would you be interested in trying? We'd welcome a PR.

[m00nwtchr]

Sure.

[m00nwtchr]

Just noticed that the "http" name in crux_http is actually an alias of http-types, which is a different http "base-crate" from http. To be clear, do you mean that you want to eventually switch to http (and so I should focus on bringing in compatibility with that, directly), or are you going to more fully embrace http-types?

(My original problem requires compatibility with http, but http-types has conversion implementations for http already, so I can go crux_http -> http-types -> http)

[m00nwtchr]

@charypar

[charypar]

Yes, we do want to eventually switch to http as the base types crate, but we expose a fair bit of http-types in the public API of crux_http, so the change is pretty major. IIRC so much so that it's basically a total rewrite of the core-facing public API, and possibly even the FFI interface.

[charypar]

I've had another look at how we go about this and logged an investigation for actually migrating and dropping the dependncy on http-types #357