Re: trying to grab a web page and write to IFS on iseries

[thomas.raddatz@xxxxxx]

   Hi Scott,
   Thank you for the clarification. Of course I also read the Wikipedia
   page that I refered to, but sometimes it is interesting to know what
   other people think about it.
   I do not have the knowledge about the HTTP protocol that you have and
   when I read the Wikipedia page I considered 301, 302, 303 and 307 to be
   the most interesting redirection codes. Now I assume that I can drop
   307 but I still think to keep 301 because 301 is a redirection from the
   point of view of the WSDL2RPG generator. In that case it does not
   matter whether or not the WSDL file has been moved and that the old URL
   might be dropped in the future. But from the point of view of the stub
   module one could get the idea to treat it as an error. I have to think
   about that.
   Regards,
   Thomas.
   ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb am 15.02.2012 19:46:04:
   > Von: sk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   > An: ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   > Datum: 15.02.2012 20:17
   > Betreff: Re: trying to grab a web page and write to IFS on iseries
   > Gesendet von: ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >
   > Hi Thomas,
   >
   > On 2/15/2012 2:23 AM, thomas.raddatz@xxxxxx wrote:
   > > As a side note, a complete list of redirection codes can be found
   here:
   > >     [1][1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes
   > > That list of status codes implies that is may not be save enough to
   > > rely on the 302 code, only. I decided for me to test for 301, 302,
   303
   > > and 307 status codes because for me these codes seems to be the
   most
   > > reasonable ones.
   >
   > 301 should *not* redirect. It is a permanent change of address. When
   you
   > get a 301, you should notify the user to update his URL.
   >
   > Technically, according to the standards, 302 wasn't supposed to
   > redirect, either... but every browser has used 302 as a redirect
   since
   > HTTP/1.0, so that behavior needs to be maintained, otherwise sites
   won't
   > work.
   >
   > Every redirect I've ever seen coded in the "real world" (as opposed
   to
   > standards docs) uses a 302.
   >
   > 303 is the newer, standards-blessed, code to do what 302 has always
   done
   > in browsers.  302 and 303 work identically.
   >
   > 307 is a different code altogether.  Unlike 302/302, where you always
   > use GET to access a redirected-to location, 307 keeps the same HTTP
   > method you started with.  That's an interesting one!  I've never seen
   > this done in a real application.
   >
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   > This is the FTPAPI mailing list.  To unsubscribe, please go to:
   > [2]http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
   >
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------

   --
   IMPORTANT NOTICE:
   This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the
   intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or
   reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a
   criminal
   offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to
   the sender.

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes
   2. http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list.  To unsubscribe, please go to:
http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------