Hi Lars, > Because it is more a "server thing", I don't know if the > call.getAllowedMethods() makes sense. The idea with the additional > methods on "Resource" sounds good.
As you said in your later email, it makes sense for a client to know what are the allowed methods and for a server to specify them. > Do you have a timeline for it? Will it be in b19? If I do the Call > Request + Response change proposed in my other reply, then I will definitely integrate this change to beta 19 too. Anyway, beta 19 will likely be delayed one more week. > For the time being I'll comment out the respective line in > HttpServerConverter to set my Allow header Okie. Best regards, Jerome > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Lars Heuer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2006 15:19 > À : Jerome Louvel > Objet : Re: Allow Header > > Hi Jerome, > > [...] > > Here is the battle plan: > > - add a method to Call: getAllowedMethods() : List<Method> > > - add a method to Resource: > > * allowGet() : boolean (false by default) > > * allowPost() : boolean (false by default) > > * allowPut() : boolean (false by default) > > * allowDelete(): boolean (false by default) > > * getAllowedMethods() : List<Method> > > > The default implementation of Resource.getAllowedMethods() > would test all > > the can*() methods and create the matching result list. > > Because it is more a "server thing", I don't know if the > call.getAllowedMethods() makes sense. The idea with the additional > methods on "Resource" sounds good. > > Do you have a timeline for it? Will it be in b19? > > For the time being I'll comment out the respective line in > HttpServerConverter to set my Allow header > > Best regards, > Lars > -- > http://www.semagia.com > >
