Re: Re: Request for vote: HTTP_Status

On 29 Aug 2003 at 21:51, Greg Beaver wrote: > The code is fine, but I don't see why this should be a separate > package. > This is more of a code snippet than a package - something that > should > be cut and pasted into a project rather than included as a file. Comment to my vote you counted and to the "separate package" discussion: As already mentioned I like to have such an addition. But it would be nice if it could be integrated e.g. with HTTP_Header or something into 1 (!) package. > I think you should talk to Wolfram and get HTTP_Status merged into > HTTP_Header where it will be more appropriate. Alternately, it could > be > merged in the HTTP package, which Stig maintains, and is also pretty > sparse. > > -1 for HTTP_Status as separate package. Yes, same for me - as already said before. :-) Stefan > Marshall Roch wrote: > > It's been a few days, and discussion seems to have stopped about > > HTTP_Status. At this point, if no one has any additional comments, > > I'd like to get a vote on it. > > > > Proposal: > > šP}FðM~­F,y› > > Xhttp://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=106187955616734&w=2 > > > > Thread: > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&w=2&r=1&s=http+status&q=b > > > > Package: > > http://www.exclupen.com/misc/pear/HTTP_Status-1.0.tgz > > > > Source: http://www.exclupen.com/misc/pear/HTTP/Status.phps > > > > The current standings are as follows: > > Stephan Schmidt: +1 > > Stefan Neufeind: +1 > > Alexey Borzov: -1, use switch() instead > > Alan Knowles: comments, no vote > > Greg Beaver: comments, no vote