7 ms·
If it needs so much explanation and discussion, maybe it is not a great idea after all?
by nokeya 3mo ago
If it needs so much explanation and discussion, maybe it is not a great idea after all?
- reddalo 3mo agoThe article describes the current situation first. The whole explanation is quite simple: QUERY requests are the same as GET, but they have a body.
- someguynamedq 3mo agoSo just add an optional body to get
- dxdm 3mo agoThe article also addresses why this is not the chosen solution. It's pretty much the first one you'd think of: all kinds of existing software (that can be between client and server and out of their control) already handle GET bodies in all kinds of incompatible ways, because the existing standard says they're meaningless and "shouldn't" be included. The idea is to not break people's stuff, so they don't rugpull the established standard. There's usually a reason why the simplest solution that pops into one's head is not "just" used by the people who put a lot more thought into it. Not always, but it can be useful to try to come up with it.
- topham 3mo agoSo, I need to update all the tools to support QUERY, or I need to update all the tools to support GET/body. So, either way, I need to update all the tools. Just fix GET.
- Ghoelian 3mo agoThe point is that if you do that, you end up with lots of undefined behaviour in existing software that has not been patched yet. If you make it a whole new request method, existing unpatched software should just respond with "Method not allowed".
- flyingshelf 3mo agoArguably the only explanation you need is that "QUERY is the same as GET plus a body". The article just explains what GET is and isn't, but that can be implied.
- IshKebab 3mo agoIt doesn't really need that much explanation though. TL;DR: It's GET but with bodies officially supported.
- lightningspirit 3mo agoI don't think this requires so much discussion; it is a very obvious and simple addition, IMO.