Michael Peters wrote:
Timothy Appnel wrote:
On 1/2/07, Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the way Catalyst::Action::REST implements its REST
functionality personally.
You mean with attributes?
No, through method naming conventions such as...
entry_POST
entry_GET
entry_PUT
...where entry is the defined runmode. If a runmode_HTTPMETHOD doesn't
exist the dispatcher automatically returns a method is not supported
HTTP status method.
I've been thinking a bit on how to do this. It should be trivial to implement in
Dispatch, but I want to run the syntax by everyone.
First off, I would like to allow users to be explicit or just use convention. So
you could have a rule like this:
'/app/:module/:rm' => { auto_rest => 1 }
And it would append the HTTP method name (lowercased?) to the run mode. So
'/app/module/entry' would become
Module->entry_get
Module->entry_post
Module->entry_delete
Module->entry_put
And if a method is attempted for which there is no run mode, then it would be
the normal rm-not-found thing.
Next, I'd like to allow users to be explicit in HTTP method mapping:
'/app/:module/stuff[get]' => { rm => 'get_stuff' }
Being explicit is good, as one could imagine situations where the
default mapping might not make good sense.
I'm just curious, but assuming most of this is going to be used with a
browser, how is one making PUT and DELETE requests, since it seems that
many browsers either do not support these two methods or do not
implement them the same way? One way I have seen is to have a fallback
to POST with a hidden field of name "_method" and value either "PUT" or
"DELETE" to simulate the behavior. What do people envision is happening
on the client end?
Thanks,
Sean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
