On 7/6/07, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
It means it's not RFC-compliant out of the box. I'm not saying that's a bad thing overall (the other 99% of the time, you don't want overhead for bits that almost no one uses), I'm just saying it's a bad fit for me. "Three lines of code" for this fix and that does start to add up; at a certain point it becomes more efficient to start with a more low-level library rather than try to impose a new design philosphy on a more advanced one. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
