Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Another approach to QUERY #2654

Open
mnot opened this issue Oct 13, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Another approach to QUERY #2654

mnot opened this issue Oct 13, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Oct 13, 2023

Reading the remaining issues on QUERY, I'm starting to wonder if it would help to define it as a transformation on a GET request -- i.e., the body on QUERY becomes the query string on a GET URI, with the transformation governed by the media type on the QUERY.

That would clarify things like caching, identity, and conditional requests.

Just thinking out loud...

@martinthomson
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that you want to REQUIRE that implementations treat it that way, but a suggestion that they could might help.

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Oct 13, 2023

Oh yes, this wouldn't necessarily be reflected on the wire or internally in implementations -- it's just how we talk about it / specify it.

@asbjornu
Copy link

asbjornu commented Oct 15, 2023

That's sort of how I've thought about it all along, so I haven't really considered the option of having another perspective. But now that you bring it up, I can see how being more explicit about this correlation in the spec might be helpful. Thumbs up!

@reschke
Copy link
Contributor

reschke commented Nov 5, 2023

This sounds interesting.

However, it would conflict with the case where the target URI of the QUERY request already contains a query part (I don't believe it's a common use case, but it would still be a weird conflict).

@asbjornu
Copy link

asbjornu commented Nov 7, 2023

However, it would conflict with the case where the target URI of the QUERY request already contains a query part (I don't believe it's a common use case, but it would still be a weird conflict).

Good point. Perhaps we could declare that to be a request error where 400 Bad Request, 422 Unprocessable Entity, or similar, is a warranted response?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants