xojo.net.HTTPSocket is driving me crazy

Well folks,
due to the fact that the old HTTPSecureSocket doesn’t support “server name indication (SNI)” I have to switch to the new xojo.net.HTTPSocket . And this drives me crazy, because NOTHING is documented about the implicit functionality. So hopefully the following helps you guys:

  • xojo.net.HTTPSocket now acts more or less like a browser, sending Cookies, created on the server side in a former request by the same instance.
    This is in contrast to HTTPSecureSocket, which doesn’t sent any Cookies automatically.
    I personally want to have more control over such features, but there isn’t a way to manipulate the new xojo.net.HTTPSocket.
  • xojo.net.HTTPSocket only supports asynchronous responses from requests
    If you ever have developed a not terribly simple piece of software, using synchronous calls you probably can imagine what a f… it is to redesign the whole thing asynchronously. As far as I know, there is no “general” solution to that, because you may never block the main-thread by polling. “Events” will not reach you.
  • the data types used by xojo.net.HTTPSocket are completely different. So you have to frickle workarounds based on MemoryBlock manipulations, having so much fun.

Well this all gives me a hard time and costs money, because it takes a while to run into and analyze all this differences between the old and new world. I’m not payed for this! And try to explain things like SNI and it’s importance to some arbitrary customers …

Xojo thank you very much!

Cookies are even sent across multiple instances of xojo.net.HTTPSocket :frowning:

At least under MacOS X the Cookies are “taken” from Browser-Cookies. Isn’t this a security issue?
(I noticed that, when I’m using xdebug while calling a PHP script from a browser. Calling the script from my xojo app afterwards, stops my debugger again occationately …)