On May 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Brian Candler <b.cand...@pobox.com>
wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:58:47PM +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
Sorry for responding to my original message instead of a reply in
the
thread, but I seem to be having some issues with the mailing list.
Oliver, you are right, I could use a javascript wrapper for
flash. The
problem with that is that it introduces a second dependency to
interact with the REST interface.
It adds a second API and complexity to CouchDB to support
non-standard clients. I.e: If you don't speak HTTP, you can't
talk to CouchDB.
I think you'll find this is extremely common; many clients
especially don't
implement DELETE.
The way Rails deals with it is to allow a form POST to have a
_method field,
and if it's present, it takes precedence over the HTTP method.
actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb:
method_tag = tag('input', :type => 'hidden', :name =>
'_method', :value => method.to_s)
Of course, CouchDB doesn't take a application/x-www-form-
urlencoded, it
takes an application/json body. So I think the nearest equivalent
would be
to allow a "_method" member in the JSON body and honour it for all
POST
requests [with JSON bodies]. Conveniently, CouchDB has already
reserved all
top-level keys beginning with underscores for its own purposes.
Regards,
Brian.
Eww. I'm all for supporting clients that have a brain dead HTTP
interface, but piggybacking protocol information into the payload
seems like not a good idea. If we're going to allow method overrides
I'd vote +10 internets for the header version.
I'm with Paul here. So that's +20 internets.
But until someone shows me something that can't be accomplished using
the _bulk_docs API I'd be -0 on supporting the header even.
Hmm, I don't know about this one. If Mikael is right and X-HTTP-
Method-Override is becoming a de facto standard, I think supporting
that would be preferable to playing up our non-RESTful _bulk_docs hacks.
Adam
