[Distutils] Re: [PEP 243] upload status is bogus

[Carey Evans]

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:

[...]

> So... the answer here is to use the HTTP status codes like they're intended,
> and to use the HTTP response body as they're intended. This beats added
> another protocol layer on top of the response.

I'm not sure if I really agree with this.  It looks like other
protocols on top of HTTP, such as xmlrpc, always return an HTTP status
of 200 whatever he result.  Relying on a mapping between HTTP statuses
and swalow return values seems a bit fragile to me.

I would actually prefer the response to be completely in the HTTP
body, probably as another set of RFC 822 headers.  This properly
separates the transport from the swalow protocol.

This would make the complete response from the server something like:

"""\
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:27:10 GMT
Server: SomeWebServer
Connection: close
Content-Length: 84
Content-Type: application/x-swalow-response

Swalow-Status: TRYAGAIN

This body text is what was described for X-Swalow-Reason.

"""

Of course, it *is* late at night and I may not know what I'm talking
about...

-- 
	 Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

	    "Quiet, you'll miss the humorous conclusion."