> In our case it's not so much that we have an ivory tower but that we > have a system implemented around GET, with no real provision for ever > using POST. Not that it's impossible, but it'd be a one-off for both > client and server, or it would drastically complicate the model we use > for passing information around the network. > > Hmm, well, maybe not drastically; I suppose we could have an argument > that causes the equivalent of a 'get' to be returned as the result of > the original call. That's still a significant change -- would we have > to change our 'put' to a 'post'? -- but not untenable, I think.
It could be even simpler, I think. * Switch to issuing a POST everywhere that we presently issue a GET, with a fallback to GET if the POST is rejected (405) or even better based on the api version for mixed system backwards compatibility. * Switch to accepting both POST and get where we now accept only GET. -- Markus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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/puppet-dev?hl=en.
