On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Philip Langdale wrote:

> I understand that this was discussed in the relatively recent past but with
> not firm decision made. I hope the fact that I've got a patch for it will
> help move things forward. :-)

We like patches!

> I'm in a situation where I have to deal with a server that won't accept GETs
> (custom implementation for a web services API) but it redirects non-ssl
> traffic to ssl with a 301.
>
> As such, things fail rather miserably. I don't have the ability to change
> how the server works so I have to cope with this on the client side. As
> such, I put together a patch to add an option to turn the conversion step
> off.

I'm in general favour of applying this patch. The only little thing that is
still bouncing around in my head is the naming of the option. I'm thinking
that perhaps we should name it somehow indicating that it makes libcurl's
behavior more standards-compliant, but then again I guess most people won't
even know what the standards say libcurl should do in the first place...

You think CURLOPT_POST301 is a good name?

-- 
  Commercial curl and libcurl Technical Support: http://haxx.se/curl.html