Message184456
| Author | orsenthil |
|---|---|
| Recipients | demian.brecht, ezio.melotti, orsenthil, r.david.murray, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2013-03-18.14:25:54 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1363616755.23.0.631482346739.issue17272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Sorry for taking long time to respond. full_url has been in the shape it is for many versions, changing it in backwards incompatible way be do more harm than good. - I would be really interested to know why the present form of full_url presented any limitation for developing an client? Apart from get_full_url there are other ways to get full_url and url associated. Any details on "Why this is must"? The explain snippet below gives the assumption on full_url setting, I could not get need for change from this. Personally, I am 0 to -1 on this too, as in I cannot see a clear need for this change. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-03-18 14:25:55 | orsenthil | set | recipients: + orsenthil, terry.reedy, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, demian.brecht |
| 2013-03-18 14:25:55 | orsenthil | set | messageid: <1363616755.23.0.631482346739.issue17272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-03-18 14:25:55 | orsenthil | link | issue17272 messages |
| 2013-03-18 14:25:54 | orsenthil | create | |