IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

rdebry at us.ibm.com rdebry at us.ibm.com
Tue Feb 25 10:21:38 EST 1997


Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080


Babek, so would you propose one new method, say "PRINT" with sub-operations to
express the IPP methods, or would you propose several new HTTP methods, one for
each IPP method?
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 02/25/97 08:17
AM ---------------------------


        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        02/24/97 08:24 PM




To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM, ipp @ pwg.org at internet
cc:
Subject: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post




Seems like Win32 Internet APIs allows inventing a new HTTP method in the
client side as well.


>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 1997 7:15 PM
>To: Babak Jahromi
>Subject: RE: MyPost vs. Post
>
>In that case the answer is yes for WinInet. --
>When you call HttpOpenRequest(), the second argument is the verb which can be
>anything -- a GET, a POST, or whatever else you will pass to that function.
>--Wininet Development
>
>----------
>From:  Babak Jahromi
>Sent:  Monday, February 24, 1997 6:57 PM
>Subject:  RE: MyPost vs. Post
>
>
>What I have in mind is to potentially define a new "post" command that both
>client and the server would understand and use.   Today Windows Internet
>clients (like the browser) use Wininet.dll APIs to talk to an HTTP server. So
>to invent a new HTTP method, ideally the client can tell the Wininet APIs to
>use this new custom method, and on the server side we can implement an ISAPI
>filter that horors the new method.
>
>Babak
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list