Well, the fact that APP doesn't define a behavior for the POST operation
on member resources gives you a head start on defining this as an extension.
A quick and dirty solution would be to augment POST with an Method
header that identifies the actual method the user wishes to perform.
E.g. for delete, it would be
POST /member-uri HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Method: DELETE
for put...
POST /member-uri HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Method: PUT
Content-Length: nnnn
Content-Type: application/atom+xml
...
Woo hoo! We just reinvented SoapAction! Life is good.
- James
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 12, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
I was talking to Matt Mullenweg yesterday and he remarked that he
didn't think WordPress could realistically support APP as it stands
now, because WP is commonly used by people on low-rent hosting
providers and quite a few of those don't support the use of PUT and
DELETE.
I think this is a problem.
The concensus of the WG is that it is not a problem.
New information has become available. You may feel that the new
information is not significant, but I disagree. Working Groups who
refuse to revisit decisions on the grounds that they've already been
taken produce things like W3C XML Schema. The WG is perfectly within
its rights to decide that they want to ignore this problem, in which
case I will be perfectly within my rights to write an I-D describing an
extension to solve it, which I will make as consistent as possible with
the rest of the APP. -Tim
