Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lacking support for the OPTIONS method; comments on TRACE #16

Open
tfnab opened this issue Jan 10, 2012 · 1 comment
Open

lacking support for the OPTIONS method; comments on TRACE #16

tfnab opened this issue Jan 10, 2012 · 1 comment

Comments

@tfnab
Copy link
Collaborator

tfnab commented Jan 10, 2012

OPTIONS is now the last method (of those I'm aware of and which should be supported) which has not been implemented

if anyone grabs this issue before me (I probably won't get around to it before the weekend) please keep in mind that it's much less trivial than PUT, DELETE, PATCH -- e.g. we should respond to requests such as OPTIONS *

I think we should also discuss whether responses to OPTIONS should be composed manually in the Command functions, using the additional headers parameter of httpSuccess(), or whether when Commands are added to the WebServer the methods should be registered, so that we'd have the full list available for OPTIONS * and could also handle responses to OPTIONS requests outside the Commands themselves making life easier for developers

also I would want to take this opportunity to state that IMHO we should NOT support TRACE as it has been proven to open security holes, e.g. exposure of authentication data

@unwiredben
Copy link
Collaborator

OPTIONS is useful for CORS support since it's used to pre-flight requests. We probably should have a compile flag indicating if cross-browser requests are supported.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants