On 7/6/07, Karen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Given that you can write your own functions, and those functions can call other functions, you only have to do it once. -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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
