On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58:46PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > 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.
Did you read the essay that I posted? HTTP is a transfer protocol, which means that the headers are meant to be related to the transfer of resource representations, and nothing else. To put it another way, the headers are a way of the client and server to negotiate how to pass request and response bodies back and forth. > 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. The Cache-Control header is a way for the client and server to negotiate with each other about the nature and status of cached resource representations. This is suitably related to the transfer protocol. > 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? CouchDB full commits are a mode of internal operation for the server and have no relation to the transfer protocol of resource representations or actual the exchange of request and response bodies. > No that I really care that much, but I find it grating when people > suspend their critical thinking in the face of dogma. I'm not happy that you felt the need to randomly insult me. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
