couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: dev@ for development discussions (Was: POST with _id)
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:29:16 GMT
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Jan Lehnardt<jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt<jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt<jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 20:19, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt<jan@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either way, perhaps we should poll the community and see
what the
>>>>>>>> general consensus would be for respecting an _id or _rev
in the POST
>>>>>>>> body?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive”
— The
>>>>>>> Internets
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean I should write a patch to respect _id/_rev members?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh sorry, I didn't mean to assign any patches :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember stumbling over this at least twice in the (distant) past.
I
>>>>> prefer the forced PUT, but then I'm also the one to argue intuitive
>>>>> APIs.
>>>>> Considering no downsides (usually Damien adds or leaves out features
>>>>> for
>>>>> a
>>>>> reason), I don't see anything wrong with Brian's proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its on the white board. I'll send a proposal to user@ and see what a
>>>> more general audience thinks.
>>>
>>> Per ASF rules, user@ has no voice here :) But feel free to invite them
>>> over
>>> to dev@ :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> I thought §4.1.2 listed consultation with the project's user mailing
>> list as a precondition for considering a matters ready for binding
>> discussion in the event that any given argument lacked technical merit
>> to be immediately obvious in superiority.
>
> Sorry, just relaying what I've been beaten over the head with heavily :)
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
>

:) No worries. Just poking fun at rules.

Mime
View raw message