- From: Wang, Xinju <Xinju.Wang@ugs.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:11:02 -0600
- To: "'Steinar Bang'" <sb@dod.no>
- Cc: www-lib@w3.org
In HTTP.c, I changed the code to treat 207 the same as 200 and I can get the response body back! It turns out that before the change, the library thinks 207 as a failure and wipe out the output stream buffer. For the request body, I tried the approach mentioned in your discussions with Josh Watts: add a new data field char* body in _HTRequest, and in the HTTPGen_new() in HTTPGen.c, send the body through when the body is not NULL. And it worked. Did Josh check in his change? I also tried to add a extension method to libwww. The idea is this generic function lets user specify the method, headers, url, and body of a request and send the request over the network. The user should know what he's doing by using this function. It should look like: void ExtensionMethod(HTMethod method, char* url, char* body, HTAssocList* headers, HTResponse* response); So the user doesn't have to write a new function whenever new methods been added to extend HTTP. Will this have any side effects? Thank you! Xinju -----Original Message----- From: Steinar Bang [mailto:sb@dod.no] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:13 PM To: Wang, Xinju Cc: www-lib@w3.org Subject: Re: get body of a response >>>>> "Wang, Xinju" <Xinju.Wang@ugs.com>: > Another question related to this multi status code. In HTTP.c, there is the > following code: > case 207: /* Partial Update OK */ > HTRequest_addError(me->request, ERR_INFO, NO, HTERR_PARTIAL_OK, > me->reason, (int) strlen(me->reason), "HTTPNextState"); > http->next = HTTP_OK; > http->result = HT_PARTIAL_CONTENT; > break; > Why the status code 207 is replaced by the HT_PARTIAL_CONTENT (206)? My guess is that it is some old experimental code left in place. > Is there some reason to convert the code? To make it be handled in the same way as HT_PARTIAL_CONTENT, I guess. However, that isn't the way 207 Multi Status of WebDAV is meant to be handled. I guess 200 OK comes closest, so that's what I used in the diff I sent in my other message.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 17:13:01 UTC