Matt Amos wrote: > rails relies on mysql's auto_increment or postgres' sequence > functionality to ensure no ids are used twice. the question is one of > practicality: if we take deleted elements out of the current tables > then we get an advantage (foreign key constraints ensure that no > way/relation can refer to a deleted node/member) and a disadvantage > (to keep api return codes the same we potentially need to examine both > the current and history tables). > > as dave has already pointed out, the transactions introduced in 0.6 > should give us the advantage without the disadvantage, as long as we > put checks inside the transaction to let the db know we need > repeatable reads. > > if we can live with 404 meaning "doesn't exist in current", rather > than "has never existed", and drop the 410 response code then the > disadvantage goes away. but thats obviously a decision that needs > discussion :-) > Thanks for the great explanation. I vaguely remember this being discussed in the past ...
If it was up to me I'd drop the 410 response code unless somebody screams loudly :-) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
