[Catalyst] Re: RFC: Catalyst::Controller::REST::DBIC
zzbbyy at gmail.com
Fri May 16 17:46:22 BST 2008
I don't know what to do with this thread.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Dave Rolsky <autarch at urth.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>>>> - a search
>>> I tend to prefer expressing searches with query parameters… hm.
>> I understand that what you propose is '/cd?year=1968', is that right?
>> I really don't know - but some people would prefer to do the search by
>> POST, or might just like to have the uri as '/cd/search?year=1968'.
> Why would anyone care about GET vs POST? I guarantee most users don't care.
> If you mean they want to use a form, that has nothing to do with the method.
> Forms can submit GET requests.
It might need to be a POST if you need to download a file as one of
the search arguments (for example for searching for a similar
> The URI you propose could be RESTful, if you think of "search" as a noun,
> maybe short for "search results".
OK - what I was argumenting about is that sometimes it is convenient
to have an URI like that. The other part of the argument is that if
you have an uri '/cd/search' - then you should not use '/cd/1' to
retrieve the CD object - because then you mix data with commands (id
>>> Example? I can't quite imagine what you would want to do here.
>> Hmm - how about a help screen - conveniently at '/cd/help'?
> Again, could be RESTful.
Great. I am only argumenting that sometimes you need such an uri - see above.
> One part of REST is that URIs contain nouns, period. The type of nouns, the
> path hierarchy, all that is irrelevant, the key is that the URI never
> contains a verb like "submit" or "edit". Note that "edit_form" is a noun,
> and is perfectly RESTful, and _necessary_ if you plan to have browsers
> interact with a set of RESTful URIs.
More information about the Catalyst