On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 07:49:06PM -0500, Damien Katz wrote: >> Not that I necessarily disagree (this might be the most pragmatic way), >> but it kind of defeats the whole point of HTTP headers. It's just taking >> the same inputs and making them slightly harder to parse. > > What do you think the whole point of HTTP headers is? > > They are, by definition, meant to be related to the protocol. > > I don't see how full commit operations are related to the transport protocol. >
My first thought was to go and look through the existing list of headers to see if there was a non-CouchDB one that had similar semantics. I did that for awhile and then got irritated at the level of crap I was sifting through. My second thought was: Are the commit semantics part of the protocol or part of the request? I mean, are we requesting that we make a full commit or are we making the same request but altering the protocol to ensure a full commit? My third thought is that we can be purists or pragmatists, but not both. We are already not being pure in a number of respects so I find it a bit disingenuous to claim purism on a given topic while blithely ignoring concerns on other topics. My fourth thought is that I have no more thoughts so I should end this email. HTH, Paul Davis > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >
