[Web-SIG] Random thoughts

[David Fraser]

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, John J Lee wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Steve Holden wrote:
>>[...]
>>    
>>
>>>On balance, your suggestion seems the most practical except for the
>>>naming (form-data is not a valid name). Maybe formargs and queryargs, or
>>>formdata and querydata, or some such, leaving the user to merge the two
>>>sets as (and only when) required.
>>>      
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>'form' seems bad because form data can be in the URL-encoded data, not
>>only in the POST data.  How about postdata and querydata?
>>    
>>
>
>I like "post" and "query" as a qualifier to "form data", after reading all
>this RFC stuff, this seems most standard compliant.
>
>request.form(query_overrides=1)   <-- returns both
>request.form.postdata()
>request.form.querydata()
>
>I think would be clear and intuitive.
>
>Grisha
>  
>
I agree, post and query are great, but I don't think "form" should be 
the general term (what about a query parameter in a hyperlink?)
I prefer parameters:
request.parameters(query_overrides=1)
request.parameters.postdata()
request.parameters.querydata()

Anyway parameters might be too cumbersome, but I think it's a better 
term than form.
We should also allow for file uploads - for this we may need to take 
into account that the entire post may not be read in by the time the 
handler gets here, so some of the postdata() objects may be file-like 
objects that can read the uploaded file.

David