cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsber...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: More problems with implementing servlet services
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:57:03 GMT
On 5/31/07, Vadim Gritsenko <vadim@reverycodes.com> wrote:
> Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
> > Joerg Heinicke pisze:
> >> On 19.05.2007 14:28, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
> >>
> >> One more reason to always put the service URL into the src attribute
> >> as you don't need to discuss and differentiate between GET and POST.
>
> +1
>
> > Yes I have to explain meaning of the "postData" parameter and its use.
> > Really, POST and GET are conceptually different beasts and I believe we
> > should not try to hide this differences anyhow.
>
> I don't buy it. What about PUT? DELETE? TRACE? OPTIONS? HEAD? Is every method
> going to get its own syntax and its own generator type? GetGenerator,
> PostGenerator, DeleteGenerator? It does not make any sense to me. Request is a
> request is a request.

+1 (I've already had this discussion with  Grzegorz).  I agree there
is absolutely no reason to treat POST and GET as "conceptually
different beasts".  They are conceptually identical; they differ only
in the implementation details of how they pass data to the server.

> Request method is just one single piece of information in
> the request and it is not making conceptual difference. Ideally all request
> method should be treated equally. In the case of this service generator, it just
> means it should take parameter specifying what request method to use... what
> headers to set... what data to include in the body (notice how I avoided the
> word 'post' here - cause it could be 'put', or any other method)... But the src
> attribute of generator is url of the service - everything else is an optional
> parameter: request method defaults to GET, request body by default is empty, etc.
>
> Vadim
>

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

Mime
View raw message