Hi, > Why is this patch ? I liked the "FOO". This one and the 202 responses are very > important.
ehmm, ok this goes to my credit. > BOFH story: > .net programmer [.NOT]: Hei, I've tryed to send a message but kannel gave me an > error > BOFH: really ? but I heard your mobile beeping, you got your message > .NOT: but my xmlhttp.net object haven't received any 200 OK > BOFH: true > ...long pause... > BOFH: and ? anything else ? > NOT: but if I don't receive a 200 OK, how would I know if it was ok ? > BOFH: you check for a 202 FOO > .NOT: 202 ? FOO ? > BOFH: have you read http RFC anytime in your life ? > ...another long pause and a face wondering what's a RFC.... > BOFH: When you try to send a message, the message goes to a queue. Fist to > kannel queue, them to smsc queue. Kannel can't reply with a 200 OK because it > can't know if it'll be a OK delivery at that time. The better it can do is 202 > Accept the message and try it's best to do it's job. Too bad there's no "269 > Don't_worry,_everything's_gonna_be_ok" :)) Hmm if we'd be very RFC2616 pendantic, then we should say "HTTP/1.x 202 Accepted". If it makes you or others a toooo big problem that it return OK now, I can live with "Foo" either. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 D�sseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- wapme.net - wherever you are
