Nic James Ferrier
nferrier at tapsellferrier.co.uk
Mon Aug 14 10:06:35 EDT 2006
Mike Looijmans <nlv11281 at natlab.research.philips.com> writes: >>>>Really that is the only difference. Which is why both cgi.FieldStorage >>>>and util.FieldStorage should allow PUT as well as POST. >>> >>>Your patch will also break any existing code that uses PUT to upload files to the server in any >>>form. By assuming that the body contains form data, the FieldStorage object will consume the body >>>and it is lost for the request. >> >> Will it? >> util.FieldStorage tests the content type before doing anything. > > You never know what a client might provide as content-type. So someone is going to send a file to me with content type "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" but it won't really be that as content type? >> Also, why would you use util.FieldStorage to retrieve a submitted >> file? Surely you'd just read it? > > One might want to allow something like: > http://my.server/upload/filename?access=755&sendmail=true > and use a fieldstorage to parse the URL. Gotcha. That does make sense. This would work with my patch, as long as they didn't pass a file and give it the application/x-www-form-urlencoded content type (if they did they would be silly IMHO). -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs
|