Citando Konstantin Vayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bruno Rodrigues wrote: > > >Citando Konstantin Vayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>i would vote +2 on making status-text be real rfc compliant (and thus > >>descriptive) > >>or +1 for having at least Foo/Bar instead of OK > > > >Are you offering to build that table in .c for kannel ? ;)))))))) > > > Yes... that is just an array of strings, nothing more ;) > [ and i would put it in .h - where the definitions for http-status are ;) ]
Nice :)))) Can I still have my octstr_send_random_foo_sometimes() ? :))) or a if(user-agent =~ /ms.xmlhttp/) do array[202] = "I therefor accept your message but I don't fscking know if I'd want to sent it" ? (kidding) > Note: i am not offerring to make kannel parse these values from RFC > although it is also a possability ;-)) No need for that. Status is the one that matters, status text doesn't matter at all. > Regards, > Konstantin Vayner > Appcell MT > > > -- <br/>
