Yehuda, than are you in support of Matt's implementation or something else?
Justin On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:55 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Just to clarify... this is not just a "you should do it this way > because it's prettier" issue. The infrastructure of the web, > including caches and proxies, assume (as per the HTTP spec), that > GET requests do not make modifications and can therefore be cached. > Making your application compliant with the web is more than a "good > idea", it's basically mandatory if you want to be sure it actually > works behind company firewalls, combinations of end-user routers, > mobile phones that use caching tricks to save bandwidth, etc. > > -- Yehuda > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Michael D. Ivey <[email protected] > > wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2009, at 12:09 AM, Roy Wright wrote: > > OK, I actually cheat a little in the controller and have the delete > > call the destroy method. I really didn't want the "are you sure" > > prompt, so this seems to work fine from a link_to('delete', > > resource(obj, :delete)) > > Yeah, this is pretty evil. Not only is it wrong, in the sense that GET > requests aren't supposed to modify anything, it opens you up to some > pretty nasty user experience bugs. > > You should listen to Matt. Seriously. > > > > > > -- > Yehuda Katz > Developer | Engine Yard > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" 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/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
