On 3 Aug 2009, at 23:29, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote:
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
--
:) No worries. Just poking fun at rules.
§ 7.4.3: Don't fullquote.
Cheers
Jan
--
