[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1923?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13829191#comment-13829191
]
Klaus Trainer commented on COUCHDB-1923:
----------------------------------------
> The "include_attachments" suggestion was only consistent in this one
> context, AFAICT all other uses of the same are simply "attachments"
> and I'd personally prefer the latter.
Using plural suggests that there are multiple instances of `attachments`
query parameter usage. However, the `attachments` query parameter is
currently used for only one API endpoint: `/:db/:docid`.
[~natevw]: While first thinking that we can just reuse the `attachments`
query parameter for other API endpoints as well, I came to the
conclusion that it is better to introduce a new `include_attachments`
query parameter for the following reasons.
In the document API, attachments are sent with *one* particular
requested document iff the query parameter value is `true`. Depending
on whether a client requests the content type "application/json" (by
setting the "Content-Type" header accordingly) or not, attachments are
either included Base64-encoded in the document, or sent along as
separate parts of the multipart response in their binary representation.
In the view and changes API we got *a collection* of documents. Even if
the `attachments` (whatsoever) query parameter value is `true`, no
attachment contents will be sent unless the `include_docs` query
parameter value is also `true`. That is, the effectiveness of the
`attachments` query parameter depends on the presence and value of
another query parameter here. Moreover, in contrast to the document
API, attachments are always included Base64-encoded in the documents,
and there are no multipart responses.
Although there would be similar meaning, I don't think it would be a
good idea to use the same query parameter name. Following the
differences in semantics, it is consequential to use a different query
parameter name. This makes the differences more explicit and therefore
can help preventing users from having bad surprises.
> Allow ?attachments=true alongside ?include_docs=true on view
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-1923
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1923
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Nathan Vander Wilt
>
> I have a situation where it'd be handy to get inline [base64] attachments for
> the documents from a view response (already using include_docs=true).
> I wonder if this is as easy a fix as COUCHDB-549 was?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
