Chris Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Kore Nordmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would actually prefer using GET with a request body for fetching view >> results with multiple keys, since otherwise the semantics [1] of POST >> requests are violated. > > I agree, GET would be nice. Perhaps we should support GET (via url > params) as well as POST. > >> Starting with using the HTTP methods in a >> different meaning then they have been developed for, just because of >> potential implementation details, may open a can of worms, breaking the >> whole HTTP standard. > > I don't think the situation is as dire as this. There's an argument > that because multi-key view requests are in effect asking the server > to do a lot of processing, POST is appropriate. GET is suitable only > if we're willing to accept limitations the number of keys (remember, a > single key can be arbitrarily long) based on practical URL length > limitations.
Allowing both, keys as URL parameters and inside the body, as well as GET and POST as the used HTTP method sounds like a very well option. So the user can chose the method he wants and fall back to the other way, if there are issues with that. I would then suggest something like ?key=["foo", "bar"], and also allow specifying all the other view parameters in the JSON struct included in the request body for POST requests. This would be a quite consistent solution, I guess. Kind regards, Kore -- Kore Nordmann (GPG 0xDDC70BBB) http://kore-nordmann.de/portfolio.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
