Message144549
| Author |
terry.reedy |
| Recipients |
orsenthil, paulie4, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2011年09月26日.20:40:12 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.8714314e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1317069613.35.0.447910542034.issue12966@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
It would be better to raise an exception* upon receiving a cookie. On the other hand, I presume cookies are stored in files that any process can mess with, so reading failures are always a possibility. So if you want to catch a (very rare) failure, to do something useful, then you should do so.
*My preference versus silent rejection. But I do not do web programming.
Unless the current doc says something I missed, I think either change from the current 'store anything' policy would be a feature request. This is assuming that current behavior is unchanged from 2.5. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年09月26日 20:40:13 | terry.reedy | set | recipients:
+ terry.reedy, orsenthil, paulie4 |
| 2011年09月26日 20:40:13 | terry.reedy | set | messageid: <1317069613.35.0.447910542034.issue12966@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年09月26日 20:40:12 | terry.reedy | link | issue12966 messages |
| 2011年09月26日 20:40:12 | terry.reedy | create |
|