Leslie, it doesnt seem to be a mistake. The ORing with direct hunchentoot:parameter call seems like a safety net for the possible fail of weblocks:request-parameter (which calls hunch:get-parameter or post-parameter based on the request-method* along with a warning when there is a HEAD parameter). But unless hunchentoot does something extra with the plain parameter function (hunch docs dont imply that, havent looked at the code though) , the second call and the ORing seems redundant. Anyway I have committed a change.
On Mar 29, 8:21 pm, "Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 29, 2:49 pm, radisb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry if this is a silly question, bit I am trying to understand the > > reason of the code in get-request-action-name function (src/ > > action.lisp), more specifically, why request-parameter is not enough? > > In what situation would hunchentoot:get-parameter / post-parameter > > (which are called by request-parameter) return nil, while > > hunchentoot:parameter would not? > > Sounds like an oversight by whoever wrote this. It's a minor > conundrum, patches are welcome. :) > > Leslie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en.
