← Back to context

Comment by PunchyHamster

10 hours ago

Well, because it is more code. Current caching software caches by headers + query string. It now needs to be expaned to cache by body too.

It feels very pointless and there is no drawback of just using POST

7 comments

PunchyHamster

Reply
OvervCW  10 hours ago

There is: your browser or other type of client does not know it can repeat a POST request if it fails, whereas a QUERY request can be freely repeated in case of errors.

  • spockz  3 hours ago

    Not freely. It is idempotent, not safe. So it still can have serious load consequences.

    • Joker_vD  3 hours ago 

          Unlike POST, however, the method is explicitly safe and idempotent, allowing
    functions like caching and automatic retries to operate.

afavour  10 hours ago

Is caching not the primary reason to use this over POST? You should never want to cache POST requests.

  • drdexebtjl  3 hours ago

    No. Being idempotent, it also lets the browser/client/reverse proxy retry it if it fails.

    • nfw2  2 hours ago

      Technically a put or a patch is also idempotent. The benefits are idempotent and safe (and semantically appropriate). Post (generally) communicates something is changing whereas a query doesn't

      1 reply →