On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Brian Candler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:58:47PM +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for responding to my original message instead of a reply in the >>>>> thread, but I seem to be having some issues with the mailing list. >>>>> Oliver, you are right, I could use a javascript wrapper for flash. The >>>>> problem with that is that it introduces a second dependency to >>>>> interact with the REST interface. >>>> >>>> It adds a second API and complexity to CouchDB to support >>>> non-standard clients. I.e: If you don't speak HTTP, you can't >>>> talk to CouchDB. >>> >>> I think you'll find this is extremely common; many clients especially >>> don't >>> implement DELETE. >>> >>> The way Rails deals with it is to allow a form POST to have a _method >>> field, >>> and if it's present, it takes precedence over the HTTP method. >>> >>> actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb: >>> method_tag = tag('input', :type => 'hidden', :name => '_method', >>> :value => method.to_s) >>> >>> Of course, CouchDB doesn't take a application/x-www-form-urlencoded, it >>> takes an application/json body. So I think the nearest equivalent would >>> be >>> to allow a "_method" member in the JSON body and honour it for all POST >>> requests [with JSON bodies]. Conveniently, CouchDB has already reserved >>> all >>> top-level keys beginning with underscores for its own purposes. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Brian. >>> >> >> Eww. I'm all for supporting clients that have a brain dead HTTP >> interface, but piggybacking protocol information into the payload >> seems like not a good idea. If we're going to allow method overrides >> I'd vote +10 internets for the header version. > > I'm with Paul here. So that's +20 internets. > >> But until someone shows me something that can't be accomplished using >> the _bulk_docs API I'd be -0 on supporting the header even. > > Hmm, I don't know about this one. If Mikael is right and > X-HTTP-Method-Override is becoming a de facto standard, I think supporting > that would be preferable to playing up our non-RESTful _bulk_docs hacks. >
Its got google blessing in one form or another which I take to mean they see a noticeable amount of traffic that requires it. I wouldn't really mind this header. It should be trivial to implement, I'm just trying to rack my brains and see if there might be dragons lurking somewhere. > Adam > >
