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 range of
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 doubt
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 are
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.
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 this fix
