That is a valid claim, I agree. I overlooked this possibility of modifying the headers before calling HANDLE-STATIC-FILE. Thanks On 12/5/08, Hans Hübner <hans@huebner.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 13:04, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:38:10 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
Than, maybe add optional parameter to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE?
Yeah, maybe something like that. But in that case I'd use keywords and not optional arguments.
I'm not sure if that's really so useful, though. What do others think?
I think that the content disposition is application specific. I'd not put it into handle-static-file. Applications can always use their own handler function to set up appropriate headers, then call handle-static-file to do the gruntwork.
-Hans
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- vsevolod