On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. It's got Microsoft's blessing and they're recommending all throughout their WCF restful stuff. As for what's that's worth, who am I to judge -- just throwing it out there ;)
