Senthil <orsent...@gmail.com> added the comment: I agree with John on this ticket. At the outset, this is Not a bug. And reading through the referenced ticket indicates the design decision for the behavior. In summary: <quote> This suggests to me that *no* automatic repeat of POST requests should ever be done, and that in the case of a 302 or 303 response, a POST should be replaced by a GET; this may also be done for a 301 response -- even though the standard calls that an error, it admits that it is done by old clients. </quote> That was Guido's point at that time.
The least that could be done is take a call on 301 response, but this would break the other clients which rely on 'earlier standard behavior though not compliant with RFC'. At the moment, this wont be necessary as it just break clients using urllib. Giorgio's point in rekindling this issue, is not related to urllib module and specifically w.r.t to redirect_request implementation. So, an alternate behavior is desired on urllib2's redirects (if they are observed by existing clients), it could be handled by another request. So, effectively closing this request. ---------- resolution: -> invalid status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1424148> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
