The new HTTP QUERY method explained

(kreya.app)

42 points | by CommonGuy 2 hours ago

7 comments

  • tosti 15 minutes ago
    > using HTTP GET with a request body is a bad idea, as for example users behind a corporate firewall or a different browser may be unable to use your website.

    So is using QUERY requests for quite some time from now.

    • jbverschoor 3 minutes ago
      Yeah, query seems just GET with a body. No difference in protocol nor behavior
  • nokeya 2 minutes ago
    If it needs so much explanation and discussion, maybe it is not a great idea after all?
  • doctor_phil 7 minutes ago
    Nice, not having bodies on GET has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. It would be nice to allow bodies on DELETE as well, but that is less of a problem in most cases.
  • 8-prime 24 minutes ago
    It's interesting to see additions to HTTP methods as it much feels like the existing ones are set in stone. At least for the time that I have been a developer. I'm curious to see how fast the adoption/support for HTTP QUERY will be. I've had my fair share of situations where I wished for something like HTTP QUERY.
    • PunchyHamster 1 minute ago
      zero. Many libs will/can just request method as a string so you can start coding now

      > I've had my fair share of situations where I wished for something like HTTP QUERY.

      Using POST instead comes with no drawbacks

    • hparadiz 15 minutes ago
      I can implement it in about 10 minutes. Not even kidding.
  • ktpsns 1 hour ago
    HTTP QUERY was discussed many times in the past here:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48568502 (4d ago, 173 comments)

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29794838 (4y ago, 125 comments)

  • koolala 38 minutes ago
    What do you think people will make the Query request body? Most everything will use this for JSON but it could be anything so what other interesting things do you think will go in there? Query 1 + 1 and get 2?
    • dreambigwrkhard 26 minutes ago
      I'm curious too. Unless the developer is really passionate about this I don't think a dev will risk (potential) compatibility issues or unexpected footguns to use this when the workarounds do seem to work quite well already. I just dont see the benefit but maybe it's because I am just not aware of a real world use case; happy to be corrected.
      • unilynx 14 minutes ago
        Elastic/Opensearch uses GET requests with a body for search, which is complicated or forbidden (not exactly sure) with the HTTP spec. Not all HTTP clients are willing to submit a body with a GET.

        So opensearch also allows you to POST search requests, but those are uncacheable

        QUERY would fit here perfectly - it's probably trivial for opensearch to add but it will take some time for clients to catch up.

  • hparadiz 1 hour ago
    This feels like someone coming up with XML when JSON already exists.
    • flanked-evergl 59 minutes ago
      No, it does not feel like that.
      • hparadiz 20 minutes ago
        My framework is already two decade old prior art and you still haven't actually convinced me that this RFC solves a problem.
        • rmunn 12 minutes ago
          1. Sometimes you need a request body. 2. POST cannot be guaranteed to be safe if re-sent. 3. This is GET with a request body, guaranteed* to be safe if re-sent.

          * With the caveat that it's only guaranteed if the server is following the RFC correctly.

          • PunchyHamster 0 minutes ago
            > POST cannot be guaranteed to be safe if re-sent.

            It can absolutely be guaranteed. What it can't be is communicated to be safe so browser gonna ask its silly question

          • LaGrange 3 minutes ago
            [delayed]