Comment Re:No (Score 1) 327
And if there's one thing that everyone else hates, it's paying to help disabled people.
And if there's one thing that everyone else hates, it's paying to help disabled people.
I don't know on beta, but on non beta, you go to your preferences (the gear next to the post anonymously checkbox) and choose "Plain Old Text" for your "Comment Post Mode". This gives you the bastard child that is forum style posting, where you can write HTML if you feel like it or you can write whatever and as long as it doesn't look like HTML it will just work but as soon as you want to write < you better break out your html entities guide.
Also remember, two enters is a paragraph.
That is absolutely absurd! How can they measure the fluffiness if they don't even bother considering all the XML required to get hello world to work in [insert Java framework here]?
You forgot the MakeRocketLauncherGoNowFactory, the MakeRocketLauncherGoNowFactoryFactory, the MakeRocketLauncherGoNowException, the
I don't know about "the" geek, but I'm curious whether, say, Somalia's government is organized enough to set up a PRISM-level metadata collection scheme across its entire communication infrastructure.
Personally, though, I assume that the NSA is double-tapping all of the communications in all of the countries outside of the US since they're already tapping all of the communications inside of it.
I think you mean "MyCoin was a Hong Kong-based virtual currency trading exchange."
Also I do without slashdot for a whole day and what do I get? I get a dupe.
Welcome back, slashdot.
Clearly we're not making posts to an HTTP-based discussion board because when we submit a POST request we get response data back that is then displayed on screen. Violating such fundamental principles of HTTP surely disqualifies it from being considered as such.
POST alters data, never retrieves it.
Except for all of the cases where POST returns data, sure. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the result of creating a resource instead of returning the newly created resource with a flag "don't do that again".
You are using a perfectly good axe as a door stop then whining that your teaspoon isn't cutting down trees properly.
Meanwhile you're dulling the perfectly good axe to be sure that nobody cuts down your sacred tree.
With modern frameworks and Java level classiness (here, have a mappingfactory class that instantiates the mapping class that maps the data from the form into the object returned from the factory class that produced the object being created) what happens is more like
The POST creates a hospital, staffs it with receptionists, doctors, nurses, and so on. A pregnant woman (the request) goes in, the receptionist routes her to the OB ward where nurses help her into the stirrups and the doctor catches the baby. The doctor takes all the baby's stats, writes it on the birth certificate, drops the certificate into a pneumatic chute that whisks it away to safety (in the database) as the hospital and all its occupants are immediately vaporized by an explosion (if you're still using CGI, replace this with the entire sun going supernova. Add recreating the solar system to the beginning of the next request).
The GET creates a hospital, staffs it with receptionists, doctors, cloning technicians, and so on. A woman (the request) goes in, the receptionist routes her to the cloning ward where the woman hands over the birth certificate that had been mailed to her, the doctor looks over the certificate and checks to make sure she's really supposed to have it (or not, given the state of security these days) then pulls out a cloning tank and reconstitutes a baby that is identical in every way (ideally) to the original and hands it to the woman. As the woman leaves the hospital baby in tow, it explodes behind her, action movie style.
Or, y'know, you could just pass the new baby straight to a View and do all this with half the hospitals, doctors, receptionists and none of the cloning vats.
then I've got a 486 upgrade I'll donate for free.
Thanks! Once it can do the same task with half the number of requests, it'll work twice as well!
I think this is less a problem with the HTTP protocol
Using onload="history.pushState(null, null, '/user/31813812');" certainly works, but now pushing the "back" button is the landmine instead of pushing refresh (not to mention users that turn off javascript). Being able to use javascript to pretend you're doing what the HTTP procotol should have done does not make it not a problem with the protocol.
That said, the HTTP/1.1 protocol itself is fine. A user agent ought handle a 201 Created response exactly like this as a side effect (OK, so the response body is technically not a listing of places you can get the created object from, but it's supposed to be displayed to the user either way), but there are zero browsers implementing the Location part of it. Adding a response code explicitly for the purpose of "here is a response to display to the user right now, if the user wants to reload it, request this URL instead" would hopefully get browser developers to say "oh, I see why we're doing this" and do it. Doubly so when they're writing a new implementation for a new protocol. At this point, I'd argue that the best thing to do would be to add something like "311 Content With Future Redirect" so that browsers that don't implement it continue with 3xx POST-Redirect-GET semantics (losing nothing) and browsers that do understand it will work.
Will HTTP/2 have a response code that will cause the browser to display the page that is returned from the server AND change the "current url" (for bookmarking, refreshing etc) to an alternate Location? POST to
Right now, the current paradigm of having to either redirect every single POST request to a new URL or risking users too stupid to know that they really need to not press reload on the page after saving something is a drain on server resources one way and support resources the other.
Invest in my scheme! Send me money and I'll send you slips of paper that say you own gold!
You'll have the choice of paying extra for Windows 366 on those years, or else leaving your computer off for an entire day.
before you get hit with the federal whammy?
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.