5 ms·
That sounds like a recipe for heartburn later, when you run into some WAF or whatever that only allows PUT/GET/DELETE/POST.
by serve_yay 12y ago
That sounds like a recipe for heartburn later, when you run into some WAF or whatever that only allows PUT/GET/DELETE/POST.
- politician 12y agoThe cockroach that you see is usually not the only one around. A framework that doesn't support extensible verbs in 2014 is bound to have more problems than just a failure to implement one RFC correctly.
- orand 12y agoHe's not talking about a framework, he's talking about web application firewalls that only support the default verbs. It's quite common and has nothing to do with which framework you use.
- politician 12y agoThanks for clearing that up, yes, as I've said, you should not use custom verbs if you have to interop with firewalls or proxy caches that perform DPI unless you've tested them.
- mistermumble 12y agoProblem is that you may test the system now and it all works fine. But the day after you deploy, somebody named Murphy adds or updates a proxy somewhere in your topology that breaks things. Or your organization gets a new customer or partner with a differently configured network.
- politician 12y agoThat's an argument for never doing anything.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoIts an argument for being conservative in your design philosophy.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- serve_yay 12y ago> The cockroach that you see is usually not the only one around. Precisely, in a way.