On 9/28/07, Nathaniel Talbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that most restful frameworks are assuming that you can > PUT the same as you can POST, i.e. that other than the verb (and what > you might do with it) the two will be treated the same.
This is a horrible Rails-ism, in my opinion. PUT and POST are entirely different actions, and the weirdness that Rails uses to make one masquerade as the other is hardly a "convention." > I actually ran in to this problem while mussing around with my little > Camping testing framework, since I was assuming that doing a proper > PUT would have the same affect as doing a simulated PUT using a > special query parameter. But I was surprised to find out that I was > wrong, and that things aren't parsed as one would expect. > > Of course, there's also the fact that while browsers don't *currently* > support form verbs besides POST, I'm hopeful that that may change > eventually. Sure, but in that case, they will likely be using PUT for direct file uploads (i.e., in place of 'type="file"' inputs) not for structured form submission, unless some data-binding framework like XForms has been used to associate the form with a persistent data format. > So am I wrong in assuming that PUT and other non-GET verbs should > support application/x-www-form-urlencoded, or is this something that > should be made to behave more consistently? I don't know that there's any major disadvantage to having Camping attempt to parse the request body if a) the request was made using a non-GET verb and b) the MIME type for the request was set to 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'. (Of course, it should fail gracefully if this parsing fails, as a poorly-implemented HTTP client might, for example, mis-match the MIME type and payload serialization format.) _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
