Implement a workaround. Just write an errback that turns 2xx into a
successful response, that way your code will still work if the
behavior eventually changes.
On 7/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So is this yet another thread on success codes that ends without
> consensus
So is this yet another thread on success codes that ends without
consensus or a final word on success code meaning in MochiKit?
Obviously I would prefer it if MochiKit treated all 2** as successes
but if the decision is that this wont change then I'll just implement
the work around and take it of
On Jul 6, 10:11 am, "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.
On 7/6/07, Karen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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 thi
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 i
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
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
On 7/5/07, Karen J. Cravens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 8:19 pm, "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > with (the ones that you actually run into in the wild). It's easy to
>
> Given the increasing popularity of REST, seems pretty likely you'll
> start running into a wider rang
On Jul 5, 8:19 pm, "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> with (the ones that you actually run into in the wild). It's easy to
Given the increasing popularity of REST, seems pretty likely you'll
start running into a wider range of response codes "in the wild."
It's kind of disturbing to lea
On 7/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been working with Async to build an inhouse web app, we have
> ended up using the return codes to implement some interesting
> behaviour in our clients.
>
> MochiKit is just one of the clients that uses the web service and some
> o
11 matches
Mail list logo
