I should say not. From what I've read, agent-driven notification never
reached actual implementation anyway.


On 7 August 2013 13:07, jvelilla <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In library/server/wsf/router/wsf_method_helper.e:
>
> > +			res_attached: res /= Void
> > +			a_handler_attached: a_handler /= Void
> > +		local
> > +			h: HTTP_HEADER
> > +		do
> > +			create h.make
> > +			h.put_content_type_text_plain
> > +			h.put_current_date
> > +			h.put_content_length (0)
> > +			res.set_status_code ({HTTP_STATUS_CODE}.request_entity_too_large)
> > +			res.put_header_lines (h)
> > +			-- FIXME: Need to check if condition is temporary. This needs a new query
> > +			-- on the handler. For now we can claim compliance by saying the condition
> > +			-- is always permenent :-) - author's might not like this though.
> > +		end
> > +
>
> Here we have support for server-driven negotiation.
> Do you think we need to add support for agent driven negotiation
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec12.html#sec12?,
> when the client cannot communicate its preferences using Accept-* headers
> Or should we let the developer to define it, because it requires different
> URI for each variant.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/EiffelWebFramework/EWF/pull/68/files#r5629615>
> .
>