[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-468?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sam Bisbee closed COUCHDB-468.
--
Resolved for a while. Closing.
POST with _id
-
Key
POST with _id
-
Key: COUCHDB-468
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-468
Project: CouchDB
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Database Core
Reporter: Mark Hammond
From -dev:
Is there any reason
On 13/08/2009 1:16 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Kevin Jacksonfoamd...@gmail.com wrote:
Another +1 here too - that has bitten me before...
+1 from me, we've also hit that one
Is there a Jira ticket open for this? I can easily imagine this thread
being lost to
a comment here and we can maybe give you guidance
on how to proceed.
POST with _id
-
Key: COUCHDB-468
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-468
Project: CouchDB
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Database Core
Fixed as of r804555.
POST with _id
-
Key: COUCHDB-468
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-468
Project: CouchDB
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Database Core
Reporter: Mark Hammond
Another +1 here too - that has bitten me before...
+1 from me, we've also hit that one
Kev
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Kevin Jacksonfoamd...@gmail.com wrote:
Another +1 here too - that has bitten me before...
+1 from me, we've also hit that one
Is there a Jira ticket open for this? I can easily imagine this thread
being lost to the sands of time.
--
Chris Anderson
Is there any reason why, if you POST a document to a database and that
document has an _id member, why this is ignored and a server-generated _id
is used instead?
$ curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/sample
{ok:true}
$ curl --data-binary '{_id:foo,bar:baz}' -X POST
http://127.0.0.1:5984/sample
On 3 Aug 2009, at 11:04, Brian Candler wrote:
Is there any reason why, if you POST a document to a database and that
document has an _id member, why this is ignored and a server-
generated _id
is used instead?
$ curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/sample
{ok:true}
$ curl --data-binary
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 11:04, Brian Candler wrote:
Is there any reason why, if you POST a document to a database and that
document has an _id member, why this is ignored and a server-
generated _id
is used instead?
$ curl -X PUT
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Brian Candlerb.cand...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 11:04, Brian Candler wrote:
Is there any reason why, if you POST a document to a database and that
document has an _id member, why this is
On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see what the
general consensus would be for respecting an _id or _rev in the POST
body?
“Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive” — The
Internets
Cheers
Jan
--
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see what the
general consensus would be for respecting an _id or _rev in the POST
body?
“Be strict in what you send, but
On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see what the
general consensus would be for respecting an _id or _rev in the POST
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see what the
On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
Either way, perhaps we
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:27, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
I remember stumbling over this at least twice in the (distant) past. I
prefer the forced PUT, but then I'm also the one to argue intuitive APIs.
Considering no downsides (usually Damien adds or leaves out features for a
reason),
On 3 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 23:29, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Dirkjan Ochtmandirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:27, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
I remember stumbling over this at least twice in the (distant) past. I
prefer the forced PUT, but then I'm also the one to argue intuitive APIs.
Considering
On 4/08/2009 7:44 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Dirkjan Ochtmandirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:27, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
I remember stumbling over this at least twice in the (distant) past. I
prefer the forced PUT, but then I'm
22 matches
Mail list logo
