On 9/20/06, Philipp Kewisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: u > > Re: the "close" header, believe it or not this is by design. This is > > actually an expected behavior related to HTTP Keep-Alive handling. > > I know it is, but take a close look at the spelling of the header key > (Cneonction). The correct spelling is of course "Connection". I know > that Connection: close is a valid header.
Sorry, I meant that this (the mispelling) was by design. It can safely be ignored. > Update: I was able to delete an event with lwp-request using the edit > url without problems, using the DELETE method directly and also with > POST and X-HTTP-Method-Override. This lets me assume that optimistic > concurrency is required. Please update the documentation on this. Yes, the documention is unclear. This sentence: "The implementation of this approach to optimistic concurrency is optional." is intended to mean that some GData feeds may support optimistic concurrency and some may not. For any given GData feed, the behavior will be consistent. I'll forward this to our tech writers to clarify. >From a client perspective, the code to do updates remains the same for the two cases; even in the non-optimistic case the edit link relation URL should be used. The "self" link relation is intended for syndication usage, not publishing use cases. The latest draft of the Atom Publishing Protocol (from which these conventions are drawn) makes this more clear. I'm glad it's working for you now! -- Kyle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Calendar Data API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-calendar-help-dataapi -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
