Re: A new suggestion on 100 CONTINUE
John Franks (john@math.nwu.edu)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Scott Lawrence wrote:
>
> >>>>> "JF" == John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> writes:
>
> JF> Would it be acceptable to say that the server can check to see if
> JF> it has already received PUT or POST data from the client and if it
> JF> has the server MAY choose not to send "100 CONTINUE"? This would
> JF> at least permit the server not to send "100 CONTINUE" when the
> JF> POST data arrives in the same packet as some of the headers.
>
> This has pretty serious implementation problems; it may be that the
> POST has no body, and any data pending in TCP is actually another
> request.
>
I guess a POST with no body is possible and would be used to indicate a
non-idempotent request.
If the POST has no body the headers must contain a "Content-length: 0"
line, so the server knows (i.e. this is not an implementation problem for
my suggestion).
This does illustrate my point though. Isn't it a little bit brain dead
to *require* a "100 CONTINUE" for a POST with no body?
Incidentally, when a client waits for and gets a "100 CONTINUE" after
sending the headers of a bodyless POST, what does it send?
John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University
john@math.nwu.edu