Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of peter.hunsberger@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.229 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=t2GKQPbFucRY8ZN1ANFLD0r98nACjDVypH4hVTqQurGcfV5yO8jhFCMCNQsxwWso+qTYCm41a4kLPKXqH7k0vedog76tZeiUZElZbMogTH3/JgHHkK30x20d0jYdP7NC1R4oO26MF/DQVMIPjX5n8taDMmlcFD/TN/5YKsNc1wQ=
Message-ID: <cc159a4a0706010657u264d840n65cb5c489b561318@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:57:03 -0500
From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: More problems with implementing servlet services
In-Reply-To: <465F7B87.9020101@reverycodes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4640A55B.8070200@tuffmail.com> <f2eu67$3dp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <464C3C2D.4070405@nada.kth.se> <464C4DB6.3030209@gmx.de>
	 <464C606F.2050600@nada.kth.se> <464EEC40.2040105@gmx.de>
	 <464EED50.30904@apache.org> <464EF656.4010902@gmx.de>
	 <464EFDA8.9060606@apache.org> <465F7B87.9020101@reverycodes.com>

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