I suppose these are okay, and it will remind us to include PUT and DELETE ...
15 years, 4 months ago
(2010-09-09 20:10:21 UTC)
#2
I suppose these are okay, and it will remind us to
include PUT and DELETE when we design the next
http interface, but are they useful without being able
to include authentication information in the request?
That is, do you have an intended application for
which these work?
Russ
On 2010/09/09 20:10:21, rsc wrote: > I suppose these are okay, and it will remind ...
15 years, 4 months ago
(2010-09-10 01:10:37 UTC)
#3
On 2010/09/09 20:10:21, rsc wrote:
> I suppose these are okay, and it will remind us to
> include PUT and DELETE when we design the next
> http interface, but are they useful without being able
> to include authentication information in the request?
> That is, do you have an intended application for
> which these work?
>
I don't have anything I was working on. Was looking at the http docs and noticed
they're missing. Granted their utility is limited without auth, but having the
base code there and then building the auth on top makes sense, I think.
I gather there are plans to re-do the HTTP stuff. I was going to play a bit more
with that code, there is some refactoring that can be done between the methods
but I'll hold off if it's going to change anyway.
I don't think these are right. DELETE doesn't typically return a body, and PUT doesn't ...
15 years, 4 months ago
(2010-09-16 17:58:39 UTC)
#4
I don't think these are right.
DELETE doesn't typically return a body,
and PUT doesn't typically send a form.
We'll keep these in mind for the next
round of http but especially since you're
not planning to use them for anything
right now I'd suggest leaving things as is.
Issue 2160045: code review 2160045: http: add support for PUT and DELETE requests
Created 15 years, 4 months ago by dj2
Modified 10 years, 7 months ago
Reviewers:
Base URL:
Comments: 0