On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Adam Langley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marshall > Greenblatt<[email protected]> wrote: > > We currently have the ability to set extra HTTP header fields in > > WebURLRequest. However, the extra HTTP header fields are not stored in > > WebHistoryItem and are therefore lost after navigation. This is a problem > > for applications that use extra HTTP headers to pass important > information > > to the server. Does anyone object to us storing extra HTTP header fields > in > > WebHistoryItem so that we can re-send them when navigating the history? > If > > not, I'll create a patch to add this functionality. > > It rather depends on the headers in question. Which headers are you > talking about? For most use cases they would be non-standard headers prefixed with X-. I would be OK with limiting the functionality to those headers. An alternate approach would be implicitly ignoring or explicitly disallowing specific standard headers populated by the framework -- Host, Cookie, Content-Length and Accept would be good candidates for that. Similarly, there's no point in duplicating Referrer or Content-Type which are already provided for by WebHistoryItem. It might be useful to support overriding of User-Agent but that can be done currently using a different approach if necessary. > > > > AGL > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
