Hello all,
The libcurl doc for CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE states that:
Setting this option to NULL disables the cookie engine and clears the list of files to read cookies from.
I've a use case where an Easy handle configures a certain cookie file, and then should be set to null for subsequent request (reusing the same handle).
The actual signature of the Easy cookie file method is:
|
pub fn cookie_file<P: AsRef<Path>>(&mut self, file: P) -> Result<(), Error> { |
Would the curl crate project accepts a PR that changes the signature to pass a NULL to CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE (changing the P parameter to Option<P>):
pub fn cookie_file<P: AsRef<Path>>(&mut self, file: Option<P>) -> Result<(), Error> {
The same kind of signature that other methods have:
|
pub fn unix_socket_path<P: AsRef<Path>>(&mut self, path: Option<P>) -> Result<(), Error> { |
I'm asking this question because I've the impression (certainly not real and not a critique at all) that the crate is now only accepting updates to the libcurl binding PR kind.
Thanks a lot for any feedback,
Hello all,
The libcurl doc for CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE states that:
I've a use case where an
Easyhandle configures a certain cookie file, and then should be set to null for subsequent request (reusing the same handle).The actual signature of the
Easycookie file method is:curl-rust/src/easy/handle.rs
Line 855 in 14d51cf
Would the curl crate project accepts a PR that changes the signature to pass a NULL to CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE (changing the
Pparameter toOption<P>):The same kind of signature that other methods have:
curl-rust/src/easy/handle.rs
Line 168 in 14d51cf
I'm asking this question because I've the impression (certainly not real and not a critique at all) that the crate is now only accepting updates to the libcurl binding PR kind.
Thanks a lot for any feedback,