Forum: Ruby on Rails Restful Rails DELETE Javascript Question...

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 21:48
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

Reading over the Restful Rails Development PDF and I had a couple of
questions.

On pg 13 it says that because DELETE isn't supported by browsers, the
DELETE is faked using client-side Javascript.  This implies to me that
resource deletion on clients not using Javascript is unsupported.  Is
this correct?

If so, is the expectation that the rise of REST will spur browsers to
support the other methods?

Thanks,
  Brad
Benoit B. (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 05:22
(Received via mailing list)
It can be faked using a POST (Because DELETE should be protected from
bots & co). You can do that with a button_to helper, which generates
an all-inclusive POST form including the DELETE method. No JavaScript
here.
Russell N. (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 16:30
(Received via mailing list)
Be aware that using a button_to [which creates a form] within another
form
could lead to unexpected results.

RSL
stoyan (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 19:03
(Received via mailing list)
take a look on restolog: http://code.google.com/p/restolog/source  i
have delete with or without JS enabled
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 21:44
(Received via mailing list)
> take a look on restolog:http://code.google.com/p/restolog/source i
> have delete with or without JS enabled

Excellent.  Thanks stoyan and Russell....

Brad
Michael S. (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 23:53
(Received via mailing list)
On Tuesday 27 February 2007, stoyan wrote:
> take a look on restolog: http://code.google.com/p/restolog/source  i
> have delete with or without JS enabled

I've had a look and either I don't understand what I see or I don't like
it. The point of using DELETE or some HTTP method other than GET at any
rate for deleting things is that it keeps search engines from
following -- "clicking" them. The effect would be, and your routes.rb
suggests this, too, that if you let a search engine loose on your app
it will gnaw your database clean in no time.

Michael

--
Michael S.
mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
Jeff B. (Guest)
on 2007-02-28 01:44
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/26/07, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> this correct?
>
> If so, is the expectation that the rise of REST will spur browsers to
> support the other methods?
>
>

I think that is the hope, that browsers will support the spec. It
surprises
me that they don't since the http 1.1 spec is from June 1999 (hasn't
that
been enough time to implement it?) and it would seem that is a simple
verb
(string) change to support it.

--
Jeff B., MasterView core team
Inspired Horizons Ruby on Rails Training and Consultancy
http://inspiredhorizons.com/
stoyan (Guest)
on 2007-02-28 03:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 28, 6:51 am, Michael S. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> The point of using DELETE or some HTTP method other than GET at any
> rate for deleting things is that it keeps search engines from
> following -- "clicking" them.

There was pretty good discussion on the problem:
http://www.thelucid.com/articles/2006/07/26/simply...

"...The delete action is a confirmation of deletion. I don't think
anyone here is advocating deleting records via GET..."
Michael S. (Guest)
on 2007-02-28 09:32
(Received via mailing list)
On Wednesday 28 February 2007, stoyan wrote:
> anyone here is advocating deleting records via GET..."
Yes, I see, for /somethings/1;delete requests you're sending the user on
a detour over a confirmation view. I didn't notice that before.

Michael

--
Michael S.
mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.