Hi,
Am 05.05.2008 um 11:17 schrieb Felix Meschberger:
To summarize the findings:
We have three (major) use cases
(1) Standard HTTP Response, e.g. 201 for a resource creation
(2) Redirect
(3) HTML Response
(2) is already supported with the ":redirect" parameter as is (3) as
the
default behaviour. (1) can easily be added in that we add another
parameter, say ":status", in which case the HTTP status would be set
according to the request outcome and the Location be set in case of
201.
The response content would be the same as in case (3).
Now, with my standards-complying hat on, I would prefer to have (1)
the
default behaviour and (3) be the special case controllable with a
parameter.
Absolutely agree with that.
Now, my question to you guys:
(a) would this suit your needs ?
It would support my current needs. Their might be cases that I can not
imagine right now, eg complex operations on nodes which you want to do
with a single XHR where something like a JSON response might be
useful. But as you already said this can also be done with multiple
requests and thus being standard compliant is the first and most
important step. Everting else is also difficult to explain.
(b1) do you want a parameter to enable (3) - (1) is default
or (b2) do you want a parameter to enable (1) - (3) is default
As already mentioned I would prefer (b1) even if it forces existing
applications to be changed.
Regards,
Alex
