On Wednesday 16 October 2013 15:52:56 John Paulett wrote: > I'll chime in with a counterpoint. > > request.REQUEST can be helpful in limited cases when the server application > simply does not care whether it is receiving data via a GET query string or > x-www-form-urlencoded POST and a different clients can choose which form > method is appropriate for its use case (e.g. possibly due to query > string length > restrictions <http://stackoverflow.com/a/812962/82872> in some browsers). > > I won't claim this approach is ideal, but I have found it useful on > occasion. Also, I acknowledge that a simple replacement could be "REQUEST > = request.POST or request.GET". If request.REQUEST ends up being removed, > I would not be upset, but I did want to state that I use it. > There is a fine point this seems to miss: The current REQUEST isn't equivalent to "request.POST or request.GET", but is a merge of the two; it supports a login form posted to a url like https://example.com/login/?next=eg which your suggestion wouldn't deal with well.
However, it does so by blurring the distinction between GET and POST parameters, which like other people here, I find disturbing. Shai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/201310161814.07961.shai%40platonix.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
