[twitter-dev] Re: Something we CAN do
On Aug 9, 1:07 pm, Jesse Stay jesses...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really surprised at all the people having issues with 30* redirects when it's an HTTP standard in the first place. Don't be so quick to judge - Twitter's been sending 302's with a Location header that specifies a relative URL, which goes against the standard you speak of (RFC 1945). There's also the issue that many clients (including most or all browsers) incorrectly handle 302's, turning POSTs into GETs. This is why we now have 303 and 307. It's not as simple as you pretend. :) All that said, I agree with the spirit of your post. It would be good if our Twitter API-wrapping libraries were able to handle all of this in stride (or at least the 302's...not much you can do about 408's and such).
[twitter-dev] Re: Something we CAN do
On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Bill Kocik bko...@gmail.com wrote: All that said, I agree with the spirit of your post. It would be good if our Twitter API-wrapping libraries were able to handle all of this in stride (or at least the 302's...not much you can do about 408's and such). Is there a list of which libraries don't support these 302's with relative URLs? I was assuming that if a library supported 302 redirects that they'd work here.
[twitter-dev] Re: Something we CAN do
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ed Anuff ed.an...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Bill Kocik bko...@gmail.com wrote: All that said, I agree with the spirit of your post. It would be good if our Twitter API-wrapping libraries were able to handle all of this in stride (or at least the 302's...not much you can do about 408's and such). Is there a list of which libraries don't support these 302's with relative URLs? I was assuming that if a library supported 302 redirects that they'd work here. I know Perl's Net::Twitter does. I don't know which others do and don't though. This is why I was kind of hoping Twitter would initiate a wiki page for this so we could all collaborate. Jesse
