Unico Hommes wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Gianugo Rabellino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: woensdag 5 november 2003 14:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:


setStatus' friends the sendError brothers are also be eligible for FOM membership. But this change has a dependency on the discussion about bodyless responses since if you'd do a sendError from a flow script and then send a page afterwards this would result in errors.


I dislikde "sendError" because, in fact, HTTP does not have the concept of errors, but only status codes and empty-payload

responses.


In the future, it's entirely possible to have a 309 or

equivalent that


is not an error, but has a empty-payload response. I would

dislike to


call "sendError()" to send something that is not an error,

feels hacky.


I think the optimal solution is:

1) add response.setStatus() in FOM
2) allow the flowscript to terminate without calling

sendPage* [thus


resulting in an empty payload]

Sorry to jump in late, I'm probably lagging behind a few posts, but was the possibility of having *pipelines* send empty payload considered instead? This way flow will always have to sendPage(), but the result would be empty content anyway. With the added bonus of having the pipeline flexibility to, say, set headers.




But the function of a pipeline is specifically towards the production of
an xml response body. To have to set up all the components, execute the
pipeline and then fooling the pipeline to send its data to a null output
or refrain from pipeline execution altogether? In some scenarios that
may be necessary, for instance in the case of the http HEAD function.
The point is, you shouldn't have to, because there are a lot of
situations where its just unneccesary overhead. (for example all the
dummy responses in the davmap sitemap)

I sure can see some use of this. In a few cases (think PUT) you might have XML input flowing through the pipeline (say you might want to transform it) yet you have to send an empty response: in this scenario using a pipeline looks like the best option to me. Also, I feel that the sitemap is core and flow, while being core, is somehow "piggybacked" on the sitemap. I tend to think, then, that deciding whether to send output or not should belong more to the sitemap than to the flow.


Ciao,

--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. -  http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
    (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)



Reply via email to