Review Request: New KIO::http_post and KIO::StoredHttpPost APIs that accept a QIODevice as input...

[Allan Sandfeld Jensen]

On Friday 04 February 2011, Dawit A wrote:
> Ahh... I think you misunderstood the purpose of the patch or rather
> the title of this review. The new APIs simply overload the existing
> http post APIs such that the data you are going to post is sent
> through a QIODevice (QFile or QBuffer) rather than a QByteArray. 
> 
No. I think understood it, and I fully agree that this patch is a definite 
improvement. As it is, I support it. I am just asking if it would be possible 
to make it even better by making the API take a KUrl or KIO job instead of 
QIODevice. QIO is after all a completely separate and different IO system from 
KIO. By using KIO to KIO it would be possible to POST data from another 
websites coming in through KIO. To do the same with QIODevice you would send 
the GET request with QIO and the post with KIO which just seems odd.

Or to put another way; PUT takes a KUrl to send to and gets the data it sends 
from a slot. POST is essentially just a PUT with return data, so I would find 
it most natural if POST mirrored PUT in how it sends data just like it mirrors 
GET in how it receives it.

`Allan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20110204/f5ea3c01/attachment.htm>