Not trying to pore salt into your wounds, bjorn, but I'm not following why you can't use a post instead of a get. Is get a requirement for you?
-Steve On Feb 17, 9:57 am, bjorn <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the function of -d, but there are two issues here: 1. it works > differently locally than on the server, and 2. lots of APIs can and should > use GETs with bodies. Maybe the RFCs don't allow it, but sometimes the RFCs > don't represent the real world. In the real world, I may want to pass > additional data, such as an API key, or something to modify the format of > the result: detail=true|false, etc, and I want to give the client the option > of putting that data in the body, which makes for cleaner, easier to debug > client code (and yes, as a server developer I try to think about the > clients). Maybe the GET call would return a lot of data, but the client > wants a subset, should the user list include=1&include=3&....include=795 in > the URL? no, that's cluttered and therefore harder to debug. Sometimes it's > just cleaner to put that in the body, no matter what the RFCs say. LOTS of > real-world API's do this, (sundcloud and Indabamusic are two I've worked > with). > > Moreover, it is very difficult to develop when the local and live versions > are different, so at least that much is a bug. > > Finally, if I am writing an API that, say, always returns XML/JSON, and > someone sends a bad request, that, lets face it isn't all that bad, it would > be nice if I had the option of returning the result so I could still > guarantee them an XML/JSON result. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
