- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:35:41 +0200
- To: "Darin Fisher" <darin@chromium.org>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:59:17 +0200, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> That seems like the current design, except we currently do not have that >> additional method. I would like to keep it out until it is more clear >> this >> is a real problem. It would add quite a bit of complexity whereas just >> having this is fairly straightforward. > > The problems I've raised here are real problems that I've observed while > building HTTP implementations for Mozilla and Chromium. It is easy for > good coders to make these kinds of mistakes. I did not mean to downplay the problems you were raising. Do you think we should have a method like openPreserveState() that unlike open() does not reset a bunch of information? So to handle a redirect you would do openPreserveState(); send(); after the initial request if status is one of 301/302/303/307. (You might have to do some more.) Do you think I should comment out the followRedirects feature for now? At until we address the problem of how to follow it easily? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 14:36:16 UTC