On 06/02/2010 02:27, c...@munat.com wrote: > Are you serious? > > I don't generate request headers. The browser does. And they do so > identically whether the HTTP method is PUT or POST and whether it's an > XMLHttpRequest or not. And I suspect that they've been doing so pretty > much since Marc Andreesen was still in Champaign-Urbana and Mosaic was > still an unrealized dream. > > I'm certain you're not suggesting that browsers be forced to insert a name > before the parameter string in every POST request. Tomcat would instantly > cease to be a viable option for pretty much everyone. So why are you > harping on PUT? > > In fact, what is it with this list? Is this the PUT Haters Club?
Mainly, it is your attitude. Given you are speaking to a community that provides assistance to other members of the community for free, a less argumentative tone would go a long way to help. > Why do I have to defend my decision to use PUT requests? When one of the possible solutions is a work-around and that work-around may involve using a method other than PUT then I think it is fair for folks to question the absolute need to use PUT. > Why do I have to keep > explaining an RFC that should be near and dear to the hearts of anyone who > works with web servers? Perhaps if you were using the correct terminology (entity body rather than entity headers) folks here would find it easier to understand you. Hassan was pointing out the correct way to use entity headers. You are trying to use an entity body. > What does *any* of this have to do with a simple > post to the list explaining that parameters passed with a PUT request seem > to be stripped out by Tomcat (though not by Jetty), and asking if this was > a bug or intended behavior? I'll address that by replying to your other post that appears to have identified the root cause. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
