On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 07:49:27PM -0800, Chris Anderson wrote: >> I think it takes a more advanced developer to code against >> headers-based APIs, partly just because they aren't exposed in the >> browser. Query strings are in the url, so they can even be copied and >> pasted around. The same holds for Accept headers vs .html or .json >> file extensions in the URL. > > Exactly. > > From a pragmatic view point, custom headers will exclude certain clients. > > From a purist view point, custom headers are the wrong place for this. > > Is there any benefit to using custom headers at all? > > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >
You can't just wave your hands and say this particular use of headers is a violation of the best practices without making an argument for why you don't think the specific headers we use are part of the protocol. In my opinion, the X-Couch-Full-Commit header is affecting the protocol itself vs the individual request. Consider the Cache-Control header. I'd say that the similarities are pretty close. You may want to dismiss it as only part of the protocol for caching proxies and what not, but are we not caching the post body temporarily in the absence of X-Couch-Full-Commit? No that I really care that much, but I find it grating when people suspend their critical thinking in the face of dogma. HTH, Paul Davis
