At Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:41:06 -0800 (PST), Elf wrote: > > Wow, it looks nice. > > I'm not sure about the type specified is only meaning-full > > if the content-type was empty. A user might expect the type > > to be overwritten. > > i didnt think it would be very common for people to be explicitly creating > the content-type header as part of the headers list (instead of just > using the type: keyword), so my (perhaps erroneous) thinking was that > if they were going to explicitly give content-length as a headers element, > there would be a reason and they wouldnt be specifying type: as well, and i > didnt want the default type to then overwrite what was desired.
Hm, probably. I was thinking of reusing http:request object, which would be used both for http:GET and http:POST, for example. > > It would be nice if the handling of Connection: close > > is consistent with http:POST and http:GET. > > > > how is it inconsistent? http posts should close connect afterwards, its not > a continuable operation, from my understandings. Here, http:POST overwrite Connection header in req. I guess correct behavior is of http:GET, because with HTTP/1.1 the absence of the Connection header means keep-alive. Oh, or are you saying that http:POST should ALWAYS close connection? > > BTW, is the old place > > https://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/svn/chicken-eggs/http/trunk > > obsoleted? > > (I wan't following this branching issue very well...) > >i > > > no, i just did it in the v3 branch and didnt backport it. since im using > v3 and there was pressing need for it to be working, i just did the minimal > work necessary. i will backport it if desired (assuming here that the > changes will not be reverted due to popular demand. :) ) I wish chicken-eggs/http -> chicken-eggs/release/2/http, but as I said, I wasn't following the issue. --daishi _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
