RFC: Pull out status_t to the top level to allow using those enum values from clients. - #837
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
deanberris
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @igorpeshansky -- I love this idea. We might even be able to consolidate this with the server-side defined status codes as well. Feedback follows.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| namespace http { | ||
|
|
||
| /// The set of known status codes for HTTP server responses. | ||
| enum status_t { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're doing this, then I suggest dropping the _t suffix, and calling it status_code to be more descriptive.
Also, if we're going to do this as well, we might as well add the following:
- An "unknown" value to be the default (say, 0).
- More known status codes, even those that are extensions -- we can probably do those later on, instead of in this PR.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ | |||
| #ifndef BOOST_NETWORK_PROTOCOL_HTTP_STATUS_HPP_20180501 | |||
| #define BOOST_NETWORK_PROTOCOL_HTTP_STATUS_HPP_20180501 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider naming this file status_code.hpp along with the suggested change to the enum name.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@igorpeshansky can you also PR this to branch 0.13-release? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Reviewers
Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.
@deanberris PTAL. Would like to gauge if this change is actually a good idea.