[Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 06:25]: Hmm - frankly I have never thought out REST entirely - but I have the feeling that it is always better to be cautious (and you know - be liberal in what you receive). It’s like Turing completeness: you can do everything RESTfully that

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Zbigniew Lukasiak
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 06:25]: Hmm - frankly I have never thought out REST entirely - but I have the feeling that it is always better to be cautious (and you know - be liberal in what you

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote: - a search I tend to prefer expressing searches with query parameters… hm. I understand that what you propose is '/cd?year=1968', is that right? I really don't know - but some people would prefer to do the search by POST, or might just like to

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Zbigniew Lukasiak
Hi, I don't know what to do with this thread. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 May 2008, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote: - a search I tend to prefer expressing searches with query parameters… hm. I understand that what you propose is

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote: Why would anyone care about GET vs POST? I guarantee most users don't care. If you mean they want to use a form, that has nothing to do with the method. Forms can submit GET requests. It might need to be a POST if you need to download a file as

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-16 Thread Mark Trostler
I'm sorry but something just feels wrong about your approach - feels like your mixing at matching REST a UI on top. Get the REST part down first, then worry about something the browser can see on top of it. I don't think you should let 'what a browser can see' to influence the REST design.

[Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-15 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 21:25]: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Mark Trostler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly you don't need 'id' in the url - so POST to /api/rest/cd will create a cd. A PUT to /api/rest/cd/5 will update that CD - a DELETE to /api/rest/cd/5

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-15 Thread Zbigniew Lukasiak
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 21:25]: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Mark Trostler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly you don't need 'id' in the url - so POST to /api/rest/cd will create a

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-05 Thread luke saunders
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Patrick Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but how you provide an alternative to full RESTness for clients that don't handle the full range of HTTP verbs -is- a matter for discussion. Which clients are we talking about here? I did a quick google search

[Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-05 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* Matt S Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-04 16:25]: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: * luke saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-04 02:50]: Also it doesn't distinguish between POST, PUT, DELETE and GET HTTP requests favouring instead entirely separate

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-05 Thread Matt S Trout
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, luke saunders wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Patrick Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but how you provide an alternative to full RESTness for clients that don't handle the full range of HTTP verbs -is- a matter for discussion.

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-05 Thread Patrick Donelan
The only header I've found you can't always set via xhr.setRequestHeader() is WWW-Authenticate because the browser thinks it should be responsible for HTTP Authentication. Which is why the last 2 optional arguments to xhr.open() are username and password, to effectively let you set these headers

[Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-04 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* luke saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-04 02:50]: Also it doesn't distinguish between POST, PUT, DELETE and GET HTTP requests favouring instead entirely separate endpoints, but that's up for discussion. Putting the verb in the URI is RPC, not REST. This is not a matter of discussion.

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-04 Thread Matt S Trout
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: * luke saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-04 02:50]: Also it doesn't distinguish between POST, PUT, DELETE and GET HTTP requests favouring instead entirely separate endpoints, but that's up for discussion. Putting the

Re: [Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC

2008-05-04 Thread Patrick Donelan
No, but how you provide an alternative to full RESTness for clients that don't handle the full range of HTTP verbs -is- a matter for discussion. Which clients are we talking about here? I did a quick google search and could only find an off-hand remark along the lines of in 2006 safari had