- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:36:02 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-04-29 07:04, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:59:18PM +0200, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >> I tried it and it works on my server FWIW The rational for not using GET definitively should be explained in the SEARCH spec. For once: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#rfc.section.4.3.1.p.4> >> ----------- >> $ telnet bblfish.net 80 >> Trying 208.64.60.175... >> Connected to bblfish.net. >> Escape character is '^]'. >> GET / HTTP/1.1 >> Host: bblfish.net >> Content-Type: text/query >> Accept: text/csv >> Content-Length: 42 >> >> select surname, givenname, email limit 10 > > Why not use POST then ? Passing a body in GET could confuse caches and > result in wrong data being retrieved. There are reasons why POST is a > different method. That rational also needs to be in the spec (for instance: SEARCH is safe, POST is not). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 06:36:37 UTC