Re: [Chicken-users] proposed change to http-client

[Daishi Kato]

At Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:41:06 -0800 (PST),
Elf wrote:
> > Wow, it looks nice.
> > I'm not sure about the type specified is only meaning-full
> > if the content-type was empty. A user might expect the type
> > to be overwritten.
> 
> i didnt think it would be very common for people to be explicitly creating
> the content-type header as part of the headers list (instead of just
> using the type: keyword), so my (perhaps erroneous) thinking was that 
> if they were going to explicitly give content-length as a headers element,
> there would be a reason and they wouldnt be specifying type: as well, and i
> didnt want the default type to then overwrite what was desired.

Hm, probably.
I was thinking of reusing http:request object,
which would be used both for http:GET and http:POST, for example.

> > It would be nice if the handling of Connection: close
> > is consistent with http:POST and http:GET.
> >
> 
> how is it inconsistent?  http posts should close connect afterwards, its not
> a continuable operation, from my understandings.

Here, http:POST overwrite Connection header in req.
I guess correct behavior is of http:GET,
because with HTTP/1.1 the absence of the Connection header
means keep-alive.

Oh, or are you saying that http:POST should ALWAYS close connection?

> > BTW, is the old place
> >  https://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/svn/chicken-eggs/http/trunk
> > obsoleted?
> > (I wan't following this branching issue very well...)
> >i
> 
> 
> no, i just did it in the v3 branch and didnt backport it.  since im using
> v3 and there was pressing need for it to be working, i just did the minimal
> work necessary.  i will backport it if desired (assuming here that the
> changes will not be reverted due to popular demand. :) )

I wish chicken-eggs/http -> chicken-eggs/release/2/http,
but as I said, I wasn't following the issue.

--daishi