On 3 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Paul Davis wrote:
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.
Sorry, just relaying what I've been beaten over the head with heavily :)
Cheers
Jan
--
