Re: [Chicken-users] wishlist: http egg

[Moe Aboulkheir]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:42:48 +0900, Daishi Kato <address@hidden> wrote:

> The http-server-form-posts works perfectly for my need,
> except for the following:
>
> a) I want to parse body by itself, and no procedure is exported for
> it. My workaround is:
>                      (request->form-field-list
>                       (http:make-request 'dummy 'dummy 'dummy body))

Something like that should probably be included.

> b) form-field-list->form-field-alist does not provide a pure alist, my
> workaround is:
> (define (form-field-list->form-field-alist form-field-list)
>  (fold (lambda (field acc)
>          (cons (cons (form-field:name field)
>                      `((content-type . ,(form-field:content-type field))
>                        (file-name . ,(form-field:file-name field))
>                        (body . ,(if (string? (form-field:body field))
>                                     (form-field:body field)
>                                     (form-field-list->form-field-alist
>                                      (form-field:body field))))))
>                acc))
>        '() form-field-list))

I didn't include a "form-field->alist" procedure as I couldn't really see any 
gains on top of just using the record accessors.  Is there a reason why you prefer not to 
use them?

> Also, I noticed that nested multiparts is not handled well,
> although I'm not using nested multiparts.

Thanks, I'll fix that.  What are you using this for, out of curiosity?

--
Moe Aboulkheir