Hi, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> wrote: > Sorry, just on that point again. It was never intended to support > anything other than URIs here, whether as a String or URI object. > We don't want to allow CONNECTs directly and since it is possible > to create a request without a URI, I think OPTIONS can be supported that > way.
The target has never been a URI in HTTP, so I thought I'd raise the issue. I think it's too implicit to assume that a non-defined uri() will default to "*" and I wonder how many will not read the fine print when they have to send an OPTIONS * and just use another HttpClient. I prefer clean, explicit APIs, but your call, obviously :) Thanks ! -- Simone Bordet http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz
