Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Ie9Yg62ed4E9WFDfG7KkkPO+eww7tjo1gd1GTB5iCmLLndTs/U8tcFnAVTXFZYf8WH
         1rcvj63zvkAqTkv8jChO7t4Myhn8wJL6iN+GsFmfZFmmEBpeuw2ZIFJ6Wn82G6qwSFxf
         BNEDAtYP0+QH3Tr+sxcIS0e5ANZTsDb6hVvks=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <10D5057E-AF1F-41FC-B31C-9BA4B318A32F@apache.org>
References: <42E1E336-66E6-4A26-AFB2-2C92D4BF564C@apache.org>
	 <20090803155112.GA13646@uk.tiscali.com>
	 <e2111bbb0908031037g4de34cbfy3bbcb68685d82e88@mail.gmail.com>
	 <B9FD1AAD-11B4-4D05-B44D-E30FB2A0B4B6@apache.org>
	 <e2111bbb0908031119g497a15a4x4008903be71d8c79@mail.gmail.com>
	 <10D5057E-AF1F-41FC-B31C-9BA4B318A32F@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:13:11 -0400
Message-ID: <e2111bbb0908031213h7cf2253fjc116ba81643ef2b@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: POST with _id
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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?
>>>
>>> =93Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive=94 =97 =
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.

Paul