I suppose these are okay, and it will remind us to include PUT and DELETE ...
15 years, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month ago by dj2 Modified 10 years, 5 months ago Reviewers: Base URL: Comments: 0