I'll do a low level sniff of the HTTP protocols and see what is being sent back wards and forwards and that will prime the conversation better.
However, do we have the correct semantics just now? Here is my thinking ...
We send a HTTP GET request ...
We get back an HTTP response ...
The response is composed of:
[Header]
[Body]
The [Header] contains "Content-Length" which is the size in bytes of the body.
We call on("data") with each piece of the body received.
However ... if the server should NOT close the socket connection, then the JS app will not know that it has received a complete response. There is no "bracket" callback that says that the data received up to this point constitutes a single record response.
We might wish to capture this somewhere in documentation if these are the semantics we want to stick with.
Espruino is a JavaScript interpreter for low-power Microcontrollers. This site is both a support community for Espruino and a place to share what you are working on.
I'll do a low level sniff of the HTTP protocols and see what is being sent back wards and forwards and that will prime the conversation better.
However, do we have the correct semantics just now? Here is my thinking ...
We send a HTTP GET request ...
We get back an HTTP response ...
The response is composed of:
[Header]
[Body]
The [Header] contains "Content-Length" which is the size in bytes of the body.
We call
on("data")
with each piece of the body received.However ... if the server should NOT close the socket connection, then the JS app will not know that it has received a complete response. There is no "bracket" callback that says that the data received up to this point constitutes a single record response.
We might wish to capture this somewhere in documentation if these are the semantics we want to stick with.