Rendered at 09:58:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ramon156 42 minutes ago [-]
"QUERY is just GET"
"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
cryo32 3 minutes ago [-]
The whole stack is a pile of badly designed hacks. Not much point in fixing it now. I mean they can’t even spell referrer correctly.
ronbenton 11 minutes ago [-]
I’ve seen a framework strip body content off GET requests, so doing hacky things doesn’t even always work. The QUERY method is a welcome addition
dotancohen 29 minutes ago [-]
> Just because it works, doesn't mean its the right way
Tell that to anybody in the business long enough to decipher someone else's Perl!
tosti 2 hours 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.
jy14898 1 hours ago [-]
405 Method Not Allowed is trivial to fall back to POST. How do you know the GET request behaved incorrectly?
tosti 58 minutes ago [-]
That's assuming the corporate proxy is well-behaved.
jagged-chisel 13 minutes ago [-]
Then all bets are off, and I guess we just can’t HTTP ever again because a proxy can misbehave.
One should adhere to Best Practices since one cannot control every device between the app and the user. Best Practice says “GET has no body. QUERY can have a body. If QUERY fails (405), use POST with the body.” And eventually, enough proxies will behave well enough that at least the HTTP bit of the app has a chance of working.
jbverschoor 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah, query seems just GET with a body. No difference in protocol nor behavior
The difference is the method. Query you're saying I can use body. GET you should never use body.
ComodoHacker 1 hours ago [-]
Except compatibility. If you're using classic GET and it's enough for you, you aren't affected.
4gotunameagain 32 minutes ago [-]
What is compatible with a QUERY but not with a GET ?
dotancohen 28 minutes ago [-]
Intermediate proxies, caches, CDNs, firewalls, and load balancers.
_alphageek 14 minutes ago [-]
>> QUERY request can be cached
I have a weird feeling. Query body is encrypted by https. So CDN will not be able to cache results.
In order to make it work right - whole topology of the internet should be redone. Caching on the backend server will not give any real gains for large scale apps.
CodesInChaos 8 minutes ago [-]
The whole connection is encrypted by https, the request body is treated the same as the url and headers or the response. The only unencrypted parts are the IP addresses/ports and the domain name (if SNI without ECH is used).
CDNs already terminate TLS connections so they can cache GET requests.
waweic 1 hours ago [-]
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?
braiamp 10 minutes ago [-]
A absolute swats of middle boxes that will not get addressed ever. As industry, it's preferable to create something that is a hard break and makes players upgrade and give people a feature to argue for said upgrade
johnnyevert 3 minutes ago [-]
Will this be compatible with graphql?
ktpsns 3 hours ago [-]
HTTP QUERY was discussed many times in the past here:
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 2 hours 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
rezonant 35 minutes ago [-]
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.
hparadiz 2 hours ago [-]
I can implement it in about 10 minutes. Not even kidding.
echoangle 1 hours ago [-]
In what role? As a user writing client code or when implementing the caching middleware or the Webserver?
hparadiz 1 hours ago [-]
In my CRUD controller that I already have.
Rapzid 52 minutes ago [-]
Body is already optional with GET. Proxies aren't supposed to touch it or assign meaning to it; it's between the client and the end server.
A whole new method whose semantics don't really fit with the others is.. An odd way forward.
CommonGuy 43 minutes ago [-]
Proxies are allowed to drop bodies of HTTP GET requests.
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 [..]
juliangmp 45 minutes ago [-]
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...
thewisenerd 38 minutes ago [-]
semantics become extremely relevant when "proxies" start caching.
doctor_phil 2 hours 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.
IshKebab 21 minutes ago [-]
What are the chances sites start using this to prevent sharing links...
restful2 14 minutes ago [-]
This breaks rest/crud.
bazoom42 4 minutes ago [-]
How so?
UnfitFootprint 10 minutes ago [-]
Is it not just READ? As for rest, why?
koolala 2 hours 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?
miggol 1 hours ago [-]
Considering the guideline that QUERY should be idempotent and cacheable, file querying requests come to mind. Reverse image search, for example.
CommonGuy 18 minutes ago [-]
GraphQL implementations could switch to this
dreambigwrkhard 2 hours 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 2 hours 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.
grugdev42 1 hours ago [-]
We should have just added optional body support for GET requests.
So much simpler...
ComodoHacker 1 hours ago [-]
More complex actually
nokeya 2 hours ago [-]
If it needs so much explanation and discussion, maybe it is not a great idea after all?
flyingshelf 36 minutes ago [-]
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.
reddalo 1 hours ago [-]
The article describes the current situation first. The whole explanation is quite simple: QUERY requests are the same as GET, but they have a body.
someguynamedq 1 hours ago [-]
So just add an optional body to get
IshKebab 21 minutes ago [-]
It doesn't really need that much explanation though. TL;DR: It's GET but with bodies officially supported.
marc_vuit 41 minutes ago [-]
nice man
xxkcd 11 minutes ago [-]
Don’t add new stuff (query). Instead fix the broken shit that’s already added (get). Sigh. Xkcd standards.
acimen101 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hparadiz 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
flanked-evergl 2 hours ago [-]
No, it does not feel like that.
hparadiz 2 hours 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 2 hours 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 2 hours 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
broken-kebab 1 minutes ago [-]
You can guarantee it to yourself, sure, but the talk is about different guarantees, those which are implied by people who has no idea about your plans and opinions but whose software may interact with yours.
LaGrange 2 hours ago [-]
I will keep using POST and not some weird thing that isn’t supported by a proxy living in the basement of a shoe store in Wageningen or whatever.
hparadiz 1 hours ago [-]
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.
antiloper 4 minutes ago [-]
Yes servers have to validate input data... This isn't new...
flanked-evergl 1 hours ago [-]
> 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.
hparadiz 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
flanked-evergl 13 minutes ago [-]
What does "some random third party" have to do with any of it? An SQL server can expose HTTP directly. SQL is not the only query language that exists.
SPARQL's standard protocol for sending Queries uses HTTP[1], and yes, of course it allows clients to define the query that it sends over HTTP. HTTP QUERY would be ideal for SPARQL queries. There are also many unprotected SPARQL endpoints that you can use without any authentication [2][3].
"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.
One should adhere to Best Practices since one cannot control every device between the app and the user. Best Practice says “GET has no body. QUERY can have a body. If QUERY fails (405), use POST with the body.” And eventually, enough proxies will behave well enough that at least the HTTP bit of the app has a chance of working.
I have a weird feeling. Query body is encrypted by https. So CDN will not be able to cache results. In order to make it work right - whole topology of the internet should be redone. Caching on the backend server will not give any real gains for large scale apps.
CDNs already terminate TLS connections so they can cache GET requests.
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?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48568502 (4d ago, 173 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29794838 (4y ago, 125 comments)
> 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.
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 [..]
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.
SPARQL's standard protocol for sending Queries uses HTTP[1], and yes, of course it allows clients to define the query that it sends over HTTP. HTTP QUERY would be ideal for SPARQL queries. There are also many unprotected SPARQL endpoints that you can use without any authentication [2][3].
[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#query-operation
[2]: https://sparql.dblp.org/
[3]: https://data.europa.eu/en/about/sparql