It does make sense, but it isn't an ideal use-case for riak. Eventual consistency means that existence checking under partition is always going to be a bit fraught.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Vincenzo Vitale <[email protected]> wrote: > Suppose I want to just store keys in a bucket without any body, this make > sense in scenarios where the key completely identify the entity. Is it > possible to use the riak http api without including the content-type header? > > Looking at the http specifications, content–type is not mandatory or > suggested when the body is empty: > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.2.1 > > and it's probably a good argument to say that if the entity message is empty > then the content type doesn't really make sense. > > Personally I think that just the existence of an http entity - body or not > body – is sufficient to justify a "type"; it's unfortunate that any other > higher type (entity type maybe?) - decoupled from what is defined as content > - exist in the spec. > > Framework like spray are quite strict about this, not setting any content > type when the content is empty: > > https://github.com/spray/spray/blob/master/spray-http/src/main/scala/spray/http/HttpEntity.scala#L74 > > how to deal with such situation? Adding a fake content because of this data > store constraint doesn't seems right. > > > > Thanks, > > Vincenzo. > > > -- > If your e-mail inbox is out of control, check out > http://sanebox.com/t/mmzve. I love it. > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
