Re: Luasocket 2.0: socket.http.request using POST

[LEGO <luis.ontanon@...>]

On 2/7/06, William Trenker <wtrenker@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/06, LEGO <luis.ontanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  RFC 2616 (7.2.1 ) says that a given implementation SHOULD send a
> > Content-Type whenever there is a body, and that only if there is not
> > you MAY try to guess what's there.
>
>  Actually, I brought this subject up because the POST variant of the simple,
> automatic form of socket.http.request doesn't generate the Content-Type
> header. The simple form includes a 2nd string argument which signifies a
> POST request with the contents of the 2nd argument as the body of the
> request. The code in socket/http.lua automatically generates the necessary
> Content-Length header, but it doesn't generate a Content-Type header.  I
> suspect from the feedback to my post that the code should be fixed. I wanted
> to get some confirmation here before I posted a bug report.

IMO, unless there is a good reason to ignore it, ignoring a
recomendation's SHOULD should be considered a bug in an implementation
even if is not a MUST.

So again in my IMO it is good material for a bug report.

BTW, if you consider something a bug, just open a bug report (just
after checking it has not been reported already, as that would be
wasting other peoples time). If it is not a real bug it just took a
programmer 2-3 minutes to mark it as "not a bug" or "won't fix", if it
is actualy a bug then it is known which in most cases is half of the
solution. If it is an debatable thing (AKA opinion report) the very
reflection on the issue may give an offspring of its own which can be
a good thing.

Anyway, as a programmer I can tell you that even not having to do
anything to fix it, dismissing a bug report is always cause of 
satisfaction :-).

--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan