2014-09-07 21:16 GMT+03:00 Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>:
> On Sunday 07 September 2014 11:13:59 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Sunday 07 September 2014 09:05:43 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On Sunday 07 September 2014 15:22:09 Валерий Котов wrote: > > > > If yes, how should it be performed? It is possible to send "OPTIONS" > > > > request by using sendCustomRequest. But how should user perform > "OPTIONS > > > > *" > > > > request? Should it depend on url? > > > > > > I recommend you send OPTIONS * if the URL has no path. > > > > Or not... the problem is what will happen with proxies. > > > > I don't have a good proxy to test with. When I tried the Intel proxy with > > the OPTIONS command, it sent a GET command to the server. > > Oops, bad testing. It sent "OPTIONS /" to the server in both tests cases > (with > and without the slash). > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > I realize that we had this discussion before. But I have to ask. =) Does not it make sense to add method and type in Operations enum for options in case we need some special treatment for "OPTIONS" verb? -- Valery
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
