- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:01:04 +0100
- To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Miles Sabin > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:46 PM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation) > > > > Julian Reschke wrote, > > Miles Sabin wrote, > > > That's consistent with the Servlet _API_ ... but you've no > > > guarantee that any particular Servlet implementation will support > > > arbitrary extension methods. > > > > OK. You can do it with any servlet implementation that conforms to > > the servlet specification. > > You've misread the Servlet spec. It _allows_ Servlet implementations to > support arbitrary extension HTTP methods, but it doesn't _require_ them > to provide support. The HttpServletRequest object has "getMethod()", wich "returns the method with which the request was made". I can't see how this is optional. Could you explain that? Anyway, Tomcat (the reference impl) and all other servlet engines I've tested actually behave this way. > > > Like I said, how is the implementation supposed to know that the > > > semantics of MGET are like GET rather than M-GET or CONNECT? > > > > It's not supposed to know. The whole point is that the servlet spec > > allows you to implement *any* method. > > Yup ... _allows_. Yes, it allows. The servlet API gives you all the control you need (by implementing the "service(request, response)" method). Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 10:01:37 UTC