GET request with body

[Nicholas Hagen]

I don't see a reason for it either. GET was made to be simple and  
straightforward. I think the expectation was to just leave it open  
ended for future spec extensions to make it easy for servers to  
utilize the body later since they are required to support but ignore.  
However, with REST more popular now I doubt a future spec would ever  
add it. PUT and POST like you said make much more sense.

Nicholas Hagen
Software Engineer
www.znetdevelopment.com/blogs
* sent from my iPhone *

On Oct 4, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Adam Fisk <a at littleshoot.org> wrote:

> I agree the 2616 is surprisingly vague on this point. Then again, why
> would you ever want to include a body in GET request? I can't think of
> any scenario where that's a good idea. POST or PUT seems more
> appropriate.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Nicholas Hagen
> <nicholas.hagen at znetdevelopment.com> wrote:
>> Actually, from my interpretation of the HTTP 1.1 protocol, HTTP
>> servers are expected to permit the body and just ignore it:
>>
>>  From section 4.3 of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
>>
>> A message-body MUST NOT be included in
>>    a request if the specification of the request method (section  
>> 5.1.1)
>>    does not allow sending an entity-body in requests. A server SHOULD
>>    read and forward a message-body on any request; if the request
>> method
>>    does not include defined semantics for an entity-body, then the
>>    message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the request.
>> Also note that the spec does not allow message body in HEAD requests
>> but says they are ignored for HTTP 1.1 but may be used in a future
>> HTTP spec.  Being the GET request really does not specify either
>> context (included or not included), I would say that the HTTP spec
>> would follow in line with HEAD and say it is allowed and may be used
>> in a future extension of the protocol.  That's my guess why section
>> 4.3 says that servers should read it and just ignore it.
>>
>> =================================
>> Nicholas Hagen
>> www.znetdevelopment.com
>> =================================
>> Now Available:  Push RSS
>> RSS Viewer for iPhone OS 3
>> www.znetdevelopment.com/znet/iphone.html
>> =================================
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Frederic Bregier wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Shay,
>>>
>>> I'm not totally a specialist, but in this case I think there are two
>>> answers:
>>>
>>> 1) the HTTP protocol supposes that no body is transfered when a GET
>>> request
>>> occurs. I talk of course about the request, not the answer which
>>> always
>>> could have a body...
>>>
>>> 2) the http codec in Netty seems to be permissive, that is to say
>>> that if a
>>> GET request occurs, it could have a body however. But it is not
>>> correct from
>>> the HTTP protocol.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Frederic
>>>
>>>
>>> Shay Banon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>  I am using netty http support and wanted to ask if netty supports
>>>> GET
>>>> operation with body (the http spec seems to be vague about that).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Shay
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Hardware/Software Architect
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/GET-request-with-body-tp3739290p3740881.html
>>> Sent from the Netty User Group mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netty-users mailing list
>>> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netty-users mailing list
>> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Adam Fisk
> http://www.littleshoot.org | http://adamfisk.wordpress.com |
> http://twitter.com/adamfisk
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-users mailing list
> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>