On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:

> >I can't but to think that this patch would lead to people wanting a
> >--data-second too etc. Can we work out a way to specify 'data' strings on a
> >per-URL basis somehow more genericly than this?
>
> That seems like a worthy goal, but I didn't see an obvious way to do it,
> and expect that it would take more effort than I am willing to devote to it.

I can understand that. But we have a tool with 94 (ninetyfour!) command line
options already. I'm very reluctant to add more options without good reason
and a few rounds of discussion first.

In this case, I think the "correct" way forward is to make this particular
feature work in a more option-agnostic way, so that more options can be bound
to a specific URL among several on the command line. Possibly by adding a new
option that separates options between URLs, similar to this:

 curl --data foo --url url.com --optionseparator
      --url url2.com --optionseparator \
      --url url3.com --data foo3

(--optionseparator used to show my point, it would need a better name)

The example would do a POST-GET-POST combination on a single command line.

Until that works, I would argue that more exotic mixes of GET and POST can
easily be made using a libcurl binding.

I'm sorry, but this means that I am not applying your patch to the curl
sources. Thanks anyway for your contribution!

-- 
    Daniel Stenberg -- http://curl.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
   [[ Do not send mails to this email address. They won't reach me. ]]