Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
>> If transport is able to inform the packet that content is present or
>> not then the binding could ignore using the codec then we would not
>> need to do this type of 'hack'.
> Yes, agree. Not sure about the HTTP transport, how trustable could be
> the content-length, but in any case seems it's worth to create one more
> extra method in Codec with a content-length param.
>
It is not necessary to know the length just that some content is
present. If there is nothing present then one could argue that there is
no point using the codec.
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109