On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 11:26 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2017-04-26 11:11, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 17:02 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > On 2017-04-25 10:37, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I added an enum with standard methods to HttpClient 5.0. It is > > > > still in > > > > my private branch on GitHub though. Please just bear with me a > > > > little > > > > longer. I'll commit that code to SVN as soon as HttpCore 5.0a3 > > > > goes > > > > out. > > > > ... > > > > > > FWIW, why have an enum for something that is extensible? > > > > Enums are extensible, are they not? Just not at runtime. > > Not for the *users* of the project, right? >
Right. Why should it even be? Those are methods we, as a project, provide as standard (common, most widely applicable, whatever, feel free to propose a better term). > > > Or, phrased > > > differently, what is your definition of "standard methods"? > > > > > > > Standard might well be not the best term. Please do feel free to > > suggest a better one. By 'standard' methods I meant those specified > > in > > RFC 7231, section 4.3 + PATCH. > > I fail to see how these are special. They are not. Oleg > The HTTP spec is pretty clear that > methods are an extension point, and that the source of truth is the > IANA > registry, not a specific RFC. If you want to draw a distinction, you > could check the standards level of the RFC defining the method (but > it'll turn out that pretty all of them currently are at "proposed" > state > due to the weird way the IETF defines it's standards). > > Best regards, Julian > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
