On 3/28/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 March 2007 15:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Client and Conduit changes > > We hashed out, but didn't come to any great resolution. I > proposed a solution, and as I understand (hopefully I haven't > misinterpreted), you agree that my solution is completely > feasible, it just isn't your preference. Well my recollection of that discussion was mostly you repeatedly questioning the need for partial responses, and me repeatedly explaining why we needed them.
Yeah, so I was ignorant of how partial responses worked and their motiviations. And I thank you for patiently explaining it. I hope we can move beyond that now. Please remind me of your proposal if you want to reactivate that
discussion (on a separate thread). But if you're referring to your proposal that the RM layer sets the 202 response code directly, then my objection wasn't on the basis of my personal preferences. Instead IIRC I argued on the basis of keeping RM transport-neutral.
I think you're mischaracterizing what I was proposing. But I can clean it up and propose it under a separate thread at some point. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
