Daniel Walsh wrote:
I was under the impression, though, that the implementation that you spoke
of would require an HTML form, or some other type of UI - which my
application does not use. Is that not true?
No of course not. HttpClient provides all you need to tailor an
appropriate POST
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13463.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Daniel,
While others have provide you with alternative suggestions to pursue, I
had one additional thought. If all you are interested in sending is the
file name, you should be able to extract that from the HTTP PUT request
itself - unless of course you want the file name to put to be
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13463.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13463.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi James,
I am known as Cookie Taliban here for imposing strict, at times literal,
interpretation of cookie related RFCs ;-)
First off all, RFC 2965 has not been implemented yet, even though
HttpClient offers limited support for set-cookie2 headers.
Currently HttpClient per default uses RFC2109
Good argument. I'd say you are right that cookies should be
accepted/rejected based on individual merits and not on the entire
cookie header. A patch (in unidiff format) would be helpful in
evaluation what you propose to change.
Jandalf.
Couball, James wrote:
Hello All,
I have a problem
~8-\
I have not been smoking, have I?
Thanks, Mike. You are absolutely right
How about this?
Cheers
Oleg
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 23:57, Michael Becke wrote:
Looks like a good start. Maybe we can agree on it in little pieces:)
I noticed the following and am not sure if it is correct:
+
