Grokbase Groups CouchDB dev May 2009

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Paul Davis wrote:

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Brian Candler <>
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.
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
implement DELETE.

The way Rails deals with it is to allow a form POST to have a _method
and if it's present, it takes precedence over the HTTP method.

method_tag = tag('input', :type => 'hidden', :name =>
: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
to allow a "_method" member in the JSON body and honour it for all POST
requests [with JSON bodies]. Conveniently, CouchDB has already reserved
top-level keys beginning with underscores for its own purposes.


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
that would be preferable to playing up our non-RESTful _bulk_docs hacks.
Its got google blessing in one form or another which I take to mean
they see a noticeable amount of traffic that requires it.

It's got Microsoft's blessing and they're recommending all throughout their
WCF restful stuff. As for what's that's worth, who am I to judge -- just
throwing it out there ;)

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 19 of 20 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
postedMay 13, '09 at 4:31a
activeMay 14, '09 at 8:24p



site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase