[wp-trac] Re: [WordPress Trac] #4779: Proposal for HTTP POST and REQUEST API

[WordPress Trac]

#4779: Proposal for HTTP POST and REQUEST API
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  darkdragon                            |        Owner:  anonymous
     Type:  enhancement                           |       Status:  new      
 Priority:  normal                                |    Milestone:  2.6      
Component:  Optimization                          |      Version:           
 Severity:  normal                                |   Resolution:           
 Keywords:  has-patch needs-testing dev-feedback  |  
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by jacobsantos):

 Replying to [comment:14 DD32]:
 > I'm not up to speed with the HTTP 1.1 spec, Content-Encoding:
 deflate/chunked/etc just confuse me from a client perspective. It'd be
 nice to support gzipped data if possible though i guess.
 [[BR]]

 I'm not saying that the function handle all of that, I'm saying that we
 allow that option for the developer instead of forcing 1.0. If the
 developer understands the spec, then they'll probably not want to recreate
 another function just to send data and parse it back. If the HTTP 1.1 spec
 requires that chunked data be handled within the function, then perhaps it
 is better to maintain the 1.0 version.

 GZipped can still be handled by the developer. The goal is to just handle
 sending and receiving, the user has to determine what to do with the
 response after that. It would become a massive function or library if the
 function did everything for the developer.
 [[BR]]

 > >The data will not always be URL encoded content ..[snip].. If I send
 XML, I don't want to have to hack around the current implementation.
 >
 > Thats handled allready, Pass a Array and its converted to a URL encoded
 query string. Pass a string and its assumed you know what you want to
 pass, so it'll post the exact Serialized data or XML. (Unless i've
 stupidly done something i've not noticed?)
 [[BR]]

 I rechecked and you are correct, it is completely possible. It should
 still be noted in the documentation that it is the case for future
 reference.
 [[BR]]

 > > Your current fsockopen does not handle redirection correctly and
 leaves that as an exercise for the user. ..[snip]
 >
 > Point taken, It would be best to follow a certain ammount of redirects
 like some of the WP functions do.
 [[BR]]
 That could be part of the optional last option parameter with the default
 at three.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/4779#comment:15>
WordPress Trac <http://trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software