At Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:45:07 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > Em 20-12-2010 01:13, Raphael Kubo da Costa escreveu: > > At Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:24:12 +0000, > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >> > >> Em 17-12-2010 15:51, Raphael Kubo da Costa escreveu: > >>> Yes, I think so. My concern now is how you're going to decide whether to > >>> send > >>> a GET or a POST depending only on data's value. > >> > >> It's a bad assumption all around. GET and POST should be separate calls. > >> > >> I can do a POST without body content, but I am not supposed to send body > >> content with a GET. > > > > Indeed. What I meant is how is one supposed to decide whether to send > > a GET, a POST or a zero-length POST based on the function's inputs. > > You're not supposed to. If you're doing http, you should explicitly know > what request you're doing so url_send is not that good a function for this. > > You should have url_get, url_post, etc... *or* url_send should allow > specifying the method. This would break API, though, so a middle term > option would be to have explicit functions for that.
OK, so we all agree that currently there's no way to use ecore_con_url_send() to send a GET, a POST and a zero-length POST with its current arguments. Can we deprecate ecore_con_url_send() and implement separate functions for sending each method during the API freeze? -- Raphael Kubo da Costa ProFUSION embedded systems http://profusion.mobi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
