Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/29/07 14:58

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:24:27 +0200, rf <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
>> "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.txtif1vr5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:59:37 +0200, rf <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.txtd9j2p5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:24:28 +0200, rf <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gernot Frisch" <Me@Privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5jklf7F149hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what is the maximum lengths for a $_GET string?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of hundred bytes or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Virtually limitless.
>>>>
>>>> True. In theory.
>>>>
>>>>> The bottleneck in using very long urls seem to be the ua's & http
>>>>> servers
>>>>> themselves, especially MSIE.
>>>>
>>>> So, as I said, the limit is a couple of hundred of bytes or so.
>>>
>>> Call me picky, but '2,048 characters' does not equal 'a couple of
>>> hundred
>>> of bytes'.
>>
>> 2048 bytes exactly? :-)
>
> Nope, it depends. 1 character is not neccessarily 1 byte offcourse.
>
>> Please cite a reference to this figure. I have heard figures as low as
>> 256.
>
> It's Microsofts own limitation on MSIE, you can find it on their site.
> MS seems to be the lowest of the bunch (UA's, servers). Possibly there
> are UA's with an even lower limitation, I haven't found them yet.
>
>> It is after all up to the UA whereas post is not.
>
> As far as I gather, there is in this case no real UA involved but rather
> just a piece of code that can do HTTP requests. Wether or not his code
> can handle larger of smaller URL's depends.
>
>> "a couple of hundred bytes" means exactly what it says. Enough for a few
>> short gets and if it breaks then it's time to use post.
>
> Aside from the fact that the URL is only limited by software using it,
> indeed, it shouldn't be that large, but it could. If you mean to say
> 'don't make it that large' (and for very good reason) say that, don't
> claim it's 'a couple of hundred bytes': That's simply not true, and may
> confuse the OP if he checks up on it
>
>> And even 2048 is not
>> nearly enouth for a "text file" which the OP specified, especially when
>> later in the thread the OP admits to 2MB.
>
> Indeed, file upload by GET is something to run away from immediately.
> The OP really should POST (or PUT, or use another protocol (FTP comes to
> mind))..

The bottom line is, it isn't documented in the specs. Each browser has
it's own limitations.

And I agree with rf in this part. Maybe not "a couple of hundred
bytes", but not a huge amount. It's much easier to just post the larger
stuff.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]