On 10 September 2014 21:15, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2014 18:24:58 Валерий Котов wrote: > > I realize that we had this discussion before. But I have to ask. =) > > Does not it make sense to add method and type in Operations enum for > > options in case we need some special treatment for "OPTIONS" verb? > > Only if we have a method for it and we're not adding one. If it's just > sendCustomVerb, then we don't need an enum entry. > > By the way, do you know of who would need OPTIONS *? What's the use-case, > who > would use it and how do they do it today? > > Given the previous discussions referenced from the working groups for xmlhttprequest I think it's pretty clear that we can forget about OPTIONS *. Just using a custom verb and implementing it in the xmlhttprequest implementation of qml seems like the way to go. Cheers Rich.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
