On 7/6/07, Karen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/6/07, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As demonstrated it's effectively three lines of code to do whatever > > you want to do with HTTP status codes, and you only have to write it > > once. If that really makes such a difference, then I doubt MochiKit is > > the right choice for you. There are many cases where you actually have > > to write code, but MochiKit's behavior is well documented so at least > > you know what it's going to be doing. > > Yes, I saw the example, but it's more of a philosophy issue... it's a > matter of the right tool for the task. I need a stickler-for-the-rules > RFC-compliant library; Mochikit seems to have a more pragmatic > approach. This works 99% of the time, but I'm that obscure 1%. >
It works 100% of the time. If you're doing something obscure with status codes (anything obscure, even successful codes that aren't 2xx), you need to use an extra three lines of code in this case. That doesn't mean it's broken. -bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" 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/mochikit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
