Re^3: Should LWP warn about wrong Content-Length? (it does)

I saw this code, but looks like it's request headers, not response header. Besides in my example, there is no warnings.

Well :) now you know your next course of action, submit a bug report if you think its important

OTOH, a warning seems like a clumsy way to communicate this -- sure its better than nothing, but not by much

GET just uses last version of LWP, installed on the box. No?

I think so yeah, but its not installed by default anymore ... which version do you have, the latest available?

Comment on Re^3: Should LWP warn about wrong Content-Length? (it does)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Should LWP warn about wrong Content-Length? (it does) by vsespb (Chaplain) on May 30, 2013 at 09:06 UTC
warning seems like a clumsy way to communicate this For request it's probably OK. Because wrong Content-Length in request is must be programmer mistake. But wrong Content-Length in response is something programmer cannot control. For response there are existing ways to report problem, like: HTTP 500 with 'Client-Warning'=> 'Internal response' header. Or 'X-Died' header (without changing http response code, i.e. it can be 200 OK) which version do you have `perl -MLWP -e 'print LWP->VERSION' 6.05` [download]	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Should LWP warn about wrong Content-Length? (it does)
by vsespb (Chaplain) on May 30, 2013 at 09:06 UTC

warning seems like a clumsy way to communicate this

request

response

For response there are existing ways to report problem, like: HTTP 500 with 'Client-Warning'=> 'Internal response' header. Or 'X-Died' header (without changing http response code, i.e. it can be 200 OK)

which version do you have

perl -MLWP -e 'print LWP->VERSION'
6.05
[download]

[reply]
[d/l]