From: Stefano Mazzocchi > On Wednesday, Nov 5, 2003, at 12:19 Europe/Rome, Unico Hommes wrote: > > > setStatus' friends the sendError brothers are also be > eligible for FOM > > membership. But this change has a dependency on the > discussion about > > bodyless responses since if you'd do a sendError from a flow script > > and then send a page afterwards this would result in errors. > > I dislikde "sendError" because, in fact, HTTP does not have > the concept > of errors, but only status codes and empty-payload responses. > > In the future, it's entirely possible to have a 309 or > equivalent that > is not an error, but has a empty-payload response. I would dislike to > call "sendError()" to send something that is not an error, > feels hacky. > > I think the optimal solution is: > > 1) add response.setStatus() in FOM > 2) allow the flowscript to terminate without calling > sendPage* [thus > resulting in an empty payload]
I'm +1 with the idea to send pages without payload but -0 with flowscripts which terminate without calling sendPage*. I would prefer an explicit way. I think this has advantages when you want to learn what a script does and I have the feeling that an implicit sending of HTTP headers can fool you if you have to debug your scripts. -- Reinhard
