The only issue may be security. The developer may accidentally expose a local function as an http method. So far this is restricted to functions with capitalized names defined under an exposed action. I am inclined to leave it as it is.
On Friday, 20 September 2013 13:00:27 UTC-5, Anthony wrote: > > Hmm, I'm not sure if there's any good reason to prevent custom methods. If > the app doesn't implement the requested method within the @request.restful > action, the request will be denied anyway. Leaving it open means we don't > have to update the framework code as more verbs are added to HTTP. > > Anthony > > On Friday, September 20, 2013 1:47:25 PM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: >> >> We can limit to those but is there anything that prevents a user to make >> his own method? Should we prevent that? >> >> On Friday, 20 September 2013 07:49:19 UTC-5, Anthony wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok. In trunk, I relaxed the list of possible REST methods. I am not >>>> sure this is the right solution. >>>> >>>> Is there a comprehensive list of all possible REST methods somewhere? >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't it just be the list of standard HTTP methods? In that case, we >>> should add HEAD (and maybe even the new PATCH). See >>> https://restful-api-design.readthedocs.org/en/latest/methods.html. >>> >>> Anthony >>> >> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
