couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: Using HTTP headers
Date Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:18:10 GMT
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58:46PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> You can't just wave your hands and say this particular use of headers
> is a violation of the best practices without making an argument for
> why you don't think the specific headers we use are part of the
> protocol.

Did you read the essay that I posted?

HTTP is a transfer protocol, which means that the headers are meant to be
related to the transfer of resource representations, and nothing else. To put it
another way, the headers are a way of the client and server to negotiate how to
pass request and response bodies back and forth.

> In my opinion, the X-Couch-Full-Commit header is affecting the
> protocol itself vs the individual request. Consider the Cache-Control
> header. I'd say that the similarities are pretty close.

The Cache-Control header is a way for the client and server to negotiate with
each other about the nature and status of cached resource representations. This
is suitably related to the transfer protocol.

> to dismiss it as only part of the protocol for caching proxies and
> what not, but are we not caching the post body temporarily in the
> absence of X-Couch-Full-Commit?

CouchDB full commits are a mode of internal operation for the server and have no
relation to the transfer protocol of resource representations or actual the
exchange of request and response bodies.

> No that I really care that much, but I find it grating when people
> suspend their critical thinking in the face of dogma.

I'm not happy that you felt the need to randomly insult me.

Noah Slater,

View raw message