On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Nick Zitzmann schrieb:
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>
>>> Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I don't
>>> have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't care either. It
Jean-Daniel Dupas schrieb:
Le 14 janv. 09 à 00:11, Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :
Nick Zitzmann schrieb:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I
don't have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't
care ei
Le 14 janv. 09 à 00:11, Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :
Nick Zitzmann schrieb:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I
don't have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't
care either. It might be worth me
Nick Zitzmann schrieb:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I don't
have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't care
either. It might be worth mentioning in the docs though that passing 0
actually t
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I
don't have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but I don't
care either. It might be worth mentioning in the docs though that
passing 0 actually terminates the request
req = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL: url
cachePolicy: NSURLRequestReloadIgnoringCacheData
timeoutInterval: 0
];
Just for the record - the timoutInterval of 0 is the culprit. I don't
have the slightest idea why it stopped working, but
