- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > >>>>> "JF" == John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> writes: > > JF> Would it be acceptable to say that the server can check to see if > JF> it has already received PUT or POST data from the client and if it > JF> has the server MAY choose not to send "100 CONTINUE"? This would > JF> at least permit the server not to send "100 CONTINUE" when the > JF> POST data arrives in the same packet as some of the headers. > > This has pretty serious implementation problems; it may be that the > POST has no body, and any data pending in TCP is actually another > request. > I guess a POST with no body is possible and would be used to indicate a non-idempotent request. If the POST has no body the headers must contain a "Content-length: 0" line, so the server knows (i.e. this is not an implementation problem for my suggestion). This does illustrate my point though. Isn't it a little bit brain dead to *require* a "100 CONTINUE" for a POST with no body? Incidentally, when a client waits for and gets a "100 CONTINUE" after sending the headers of a bodyless POST, what does it send? John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 12:46:55 UTC