On Oct 28, 5:01 am, Hongli Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 11:02 am, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > As was mentioned by others, you should really be sending 201, so I'm
> > not even sure this is an issue that merits changing the documentation.
> > I realise browsers don't support 201 but that's why we have
> > respond_to
>
> Seeing that a lot of developers are confused about the status codes,
> shouldn't the documentation mention the differences between 302, 303
> and 201? Or at least link to the appropriate discussion for further
> information? This sort of documentation doesn't have any impact on the
> API, and thus won't increase maintenance burden, but it'll make lives
> for developers a bit easier. POST responses are very common and I
> think Rails should document recommended practice in a well-defined,
> central place (the API docs) instead of forcing people to look all
> over the Internet.
I think that's reasonable...
Also, perhaps redirect_to with an activerecord model could assume a
303?
redirect_to foo_path # 301
redirect_to @foo # 303
The fact that browsers don't redo the post when reloading sounds like
a good idea.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
