On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see what the >>>>>> general consensus would be for respecting an _id or _rev in the POST >>>>>> body? >>>>> >>>>> “Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive” — The >>>>> Internets >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Jan >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does that mean I should write a patch to respect _id/_rev members? >>> >>> Oh sorry, I didn't mean to assign any patches :) >>> >>> I remember stumbling over this at least twice in the (distant) past. I >>> prefer the forced PUT, but then I'm also the one to argue intuitive APIs. >>> Considering no downsides (usually Damien adds or leaves out features for >>> a >>> reason), I don't see anything wrong with Brian's proposal. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> Its on the white board. I'll send a proposal to user@ and see what a >> more general audience thinks. > > Per ASF rules, user@ has no voice here :) But feel free to invite them over > to dev@ :) > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > > >
I thought §4.1.2 listed consultation with the project's user mailing list as a precondition for considering a matters ready for binding discussion in the event that any given argument lacked technical merit to be immediately obvious in superiority. Paul Davis
