> 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.
I wonder what the drawbacks of standardizing a GET body would have been. CoAP already has it (which creates friction in building CoAP<->HTTP proxies).
All in all, I dislike the overall focus on the HTTP method when designing "RESTful" interfaces. If all we're building is, effectively, an RPC, why would the cacheability meta-information be the first thing we specify?
Yeah I always disliked that there's this idea that you can't put a body on a GET request.
Iirc openapi generators goes out of its way to not support that which has lead to me writing a small rant into an API specification before to explain why the get_xyz uses POST...
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.
I think the article summarizes pretty well what the drawbacks of POST are: unclear idempotency (well it's actually pretty damned clear: they are not cacheable). That complicates caching logic, and that's not just for the application server itself, but any reverse proxies in front of it as well as the user agent itself.
I'm not sure QUERY is a great solution, because in the context of a web application absolutely no one enjoys using a page that does not keep its state on refresh, so that really limits where QUERY makes sense, but if you have a case that is not driven by navigation, great.
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.
Arguably the only explanation you need is that "QUERY is the same as GET plus a body". The article just explains what GET is and isn't, but that can be implied.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I read the RFC front to back. It is lazy. To the point where I'd be embarrassed to even show it to people.
For one you would never allow a client to dictate the query. That is a security and validation problem. So you have to deconstruct the query anyway and then rebuild it. That's HTTP APIs 101. Now if the authors of this RFC knew what they were doing they could enforce trust with some sort of JWT like trust mechanism but no they don't bother to define ANYTHING like that. Instead and I will quote this for completeness because it's honestly one of the funniest things I've ever read in an RFC.
> 4. Security Considerations
> It can be used as an alternative to passing request information in the URI (e.g., in the query component). This is preferred in some cases, as the URI is more likely to be logged or otherwise processed by intermediaries than the request content. In other cases, where the query contains sensitive information, the potential for logging of the URI might motivate the use of QUERY over GET.
This. This is just plain baffling to me. The argument is that QUERY replaces GET (it doesn't) so let's shove data into the same place that POST already does because it MAY MAY be logged. Bro the people doing the logging are logging the entire damn thing URI, Header, and Body. What even is this.
And again if they knew their shit they would know that GET has a soft cap of 2,083 characters from the internet explorer days so no one shoves more than that into a url for compatibility and if they do they risk losing data so they use POST anyway. Heck my framework even does JSON post bodies in the POST. And again if you are writing an RFC do your research and use this technical fact as an advantage. Define your own limits and explain why based on existing methodology. It would actually give your RFC some weight.
It doesn't even bother to address query feedback errors like what if the disk says no and writes are locked.
Frankly...... I miss the old days when RFCs where measured in pounds of paper.
> For one you would never allow a client to dictate the query. That is a security and validation problem. So you have to deconstruct the query anyway and then rebuild it.
Every single SQL server allows a client to dictate the query. Furthermore, not all queries are SQL queries.
"Using GET with a Body works"
Seems like this is going everyone's head. You're not supposed to use GET with a Body, this is a hack, therefore having an explicit method makes sense.
Just because it works, doesn't mean its the right way
So is using QUERY requests for quite some time from now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48568502 (4d ago, 173 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29794838 (4y ago, 125 comments)
All in all, I dislike the overall focus on the HTTP method when designing "RESTful" interfaces. If all we're building is, effectively, an RPC, why would the cacheability meta-information be the first thing we specify?
A whole new method whose semantics don't really fit with the others is.. An odd way forward.
RFC 9110 states:
> [..] content received in a GET request has no generally defined semantics, cannot alter the meaning or target of the request [..]
> A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request [..]
> I've had my fair share of situations where I wished for something like HTTP QUERY.
Using POST instead comes with no drawbacks
I'm not sure QUERY is a great solution, because in the context of a web application absolutely no one enjoys using a page that does not keep its state on refresh, so that really limits where QUERY makes sense, but if you have a case that is not driven by navigation, great.
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.
So much simpler...
* With the caveat that it's only guaranteed if the server is following the RFC correctly.
It can absolutely be guaranteed. What it can't be is communicated to be safe so browser gonna ask its silly question
For one you would never allow a client to dictate the query. That is a security and validation problem. So you have to deconstruct the query anyway and then rebuild it. That's HTTP APIs 101. Now if the authors of this RFC knew what they were doing they could enforce trust with some sort of JWT like trust mechanism but no they don't bother to define ANYTHING like that. Instead and I will quote this for completeness because it's honestly one of the funniest things I've ever read in an RFC.
> 4. Security Considerations
> It can be used as an alternative to passing request information in the URI (e.g., in the query component). This is preferred in some cases, as the URI is more likely to be logged or otherwise processed by intermediaries than the request content. In other cases, where the query contains sensitive information, the potential for logging of the URI might motivate the use of QUERY over GET.
This. This is just plain baffling to me. The argument is that QUERY replaces GET (it doesn't) so let's shove data into the same place that POST already does because it MAY MAY be logged. Bro the people doing the logging are logging the entire damn thing URI, Header, and Body. What even is this.
And again if they knew their shit they would know that GET has a soft cap of 2,083 characters from the internet explorer days so no one shoves more than that into a url for compatibility and if they do they risk losing data so they use POST anyway. Heck my framework even does JSON post bodies in the POST. And again if you are writing an RFC do your research and use this technical fact as an advantage. Define your own limits and explain why based on existing methodology. It would actually give your RFC some weight.
It doesn't even bother to address query feedback errors like what if the disk says no and writes are locked.
Frankly...... I miss the old days when RFCs where measured in pounds of paper.
Every single SQL server allows a client to dictate the query. Furthermore, not all queries are SQL queries.