On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Balachandran Sivakumar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Girish Venkatachalam > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> #define HTTP_GET_CMD "GET /%s HTTP 1.1\r\n\r\n" >> > > Not nitpicking, but I guess that's an RFC violation ;) HTTP 1.1 > says Host header is mandatory. From RFC 2616, :
Okay. I only get irritated when people don't talk technical. You do and it is a genuine flaw. No problem. I am only glad. Only that I dunno how to fix it. Are you supposed to say something like: "HOST foobar \r\n\r\n" or something? I am sure it is before the GET right? I am aware of many other flaws too. Like this won't work with HTTP 301 redirects as is the case with tinyurls which is what Shrinivasan is fond of. And I am definitely not RFC compliant since I said that URL encoding is not handled. And I don't handle all the header responses. So this is not a surprise. Can you throw some light on your point please? Moreover my point was only a broad example to illustrate the concept. One has to build on top of it. It has educational value and gives a real life kick. For something professional more work is required. But it is also a truth of life that majority of professional commercial grade code is not standards compliant. > > "A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages ." > Good. I am glad there is someone talking of RFC standards. Good. Keep it up. > And nice initiative. People on the list, new to socket programming can > possibly start with this. Thanks > Doesn't anybody want a code walk through? Unless someone asks I am not gonna do it. -Girish _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
