|
Every http request has a verb, that's just how http works, the verb lets the service know what action is being done, the theory being that you can use the same url to do different things. If you have the following endpoint
/product/5
then calling it with GET will return product 5's data, calling it with DELETE will delete product 5 and so on. Because all requests have a verb you have to tell .net which verbs are valid for your method.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I don't understand why you even need to mark up the method. What if I did this:
public class MyController : ApiController
{
[HttpGet]
public void DoSomething(int id)
{
MyBL myBL = new MyBL();
myBl.DeleteARecord(Id);
}
}
I've marked the method with [HttpGet], yet called a Delete method on the BL.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
If you do that it will fail with a 404 as the method doesn't allow that verb.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? There's nothing there to indicate what is does. I could name the BL method "BeHappy" and it would still run
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
It won't work because you haven't marked it [HttpDelete]
|
|
|
|
|
That still doesn't answer the question. The word 'delete' doesn't even exist in the method. What's stopping me from calling it?
I've called Web API methods before like TaxController's CalculateTax method. There's no HttpGet, HttpPut, HttpPost, or HttpDelete there, yet the method works.
So, again, what purpose do the verbs serve?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: The word 'delete' doesn't even exist in the method. What's stopping me from calling it?
If you put a non-delete verb attribute on it then the framework will stop you calling it, it will return a 404. .net has two ways of associating methods with verbs, one is the explicit adding of the attributes which will restrict what can route to that action. It also follows a naming convention so you can put the verb at the start of the action name, so GetProduct, DeleteProduct etc and .net will use that to route your calls to the right method by matching the verb with the action prefix. You can choose to follow neither convention and use bespoke names and no verb attributes and the routing will (I assume) work on the action name only.
So the purpose they serve is that if you want to following proper semantic api conventions where you route your calls to actions based on the verb then the HttpXXX attributes allow you to implement that convention if you don't want to use the names themselves to route your methods.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: If you put a non-delete verb attribute on it then the framework will stop you calling it, it will return a 404.
This is what's confusing to me. I have a Web API with NO verbs on it, and I can call it from my WPF app just fine. That's what got me posting this... what's the point of the verbs if I can create and call methods without them?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Supposedly if there are no verbs applied it defaults to HttpPost, so even though you didn't specify a verb, one does exist.
|
|
|
|
|
It won't fail because he's suggesting calling that with HttpGet as the verb. Syntactically it's correct, but is not good practice.
I guess part of the answer is that historically, the HTTP verb played a more important part. Languages / frameworks were less flexible (or stricter?). There remain some practicalities - if you want to upload a 50Mb file, you don't want to use HttpGet because that would require the payload to be in the URL, and Http doesn't support URLs of that length. Your webserver may handle different verbs very differently, but where we're using IIS we can have ASP.Net handle different verbs - or ignore certain verbs - just how we want. For example, by default, IIS won't let you invoke a .ASMX webservice via HttpGet - but you can make a trivial change in web.config to allow it.
From RFC2616[^], part of the HTTP1.1 definition:
Quote: In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
Interestingly, the implication is that the end user is aware of the HTTP verbs being used in an interaction - again, a throwback to a time when internet use was the preserve of techs working at protocol level.
In short, then, the answer to the original question is simply: it's convention.
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: It won't fail
It will. The verbs are used as part of the routing subsystem which maps requests to actions. Requesting an action called "DoSomething" that is marked as HttpDelete with a GET request is (to the routing system) no different to requesting an action called "DoSomethingElse" when no action with that name exists. If it can't map the request to an action you get a 404.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin said: public class MyController : ApiController
{
[HttpGet]
public void DoSomething(int id)
{
MyBL myBL = new MyBL();
myBl.DeleteARecord(Id);
}
}
I've marked the method with [HttpGet], yet called a Delete method on the BL.
"DoSomething" is marked up for HttpGet and he says he's calling it with HttpGet. In his method DoSomething he calls a business layer method myBL.DeleteARecord(Id) but for all we know that is just counting apples.
OR - and this may be the case, I don't do MVC so maybe it's a .Net restriction (as opposed to an HTTP restriction) - will it not allow you to have a void method decorated with HttpGet? (In which case it shouldn't even compile).
There are two parts to an answer to Kevin's question - firstly, why does HTTP need verbs; then secondly, why does ASP.Net need to reference them? From my WebForms / web service background, I've never had to deal with HTTP verbs, other than (in some cases) allowing .ASMX services to be called from a GET request (which was done purely for the benefit of a 3rd party, to make testing simpler for them). Re-reading the original post, I think Kevin's more concerned with why ASP.Net MVC needs the markup, to which the answer is that it's used for mapping the request to the method.
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: "DoSomething" is marked up for HttpGet and he says he's calling it with HttpGet. In his method DoSomething he calls a business layer method myBL.DeleteARecord(Id) but for all we know that is just counting apples.
Correct, I misread the post and have posted an update 
|
|
|
|
|
Looking back I misread this so I can see where the confusion has come from. I thought you said you were calling it with a DELETE verb which is why I said it wouldn't work, that was my mistake I didn't realise you were saying that you were calling a delete method in the code. So yes you're right, that code would work, but you then enter the semantic convention debate again and could say that if your method's purpose is to delete something it should be marked with HttpDelete, and then you wouldn't be able to call it with GET.
Apologies for the confusion, that was a mistake on my part 
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have some image validation code in python that's "working", but it corrupts the uploaded image every time. I'm using Pillow to open and validate file size and format, but I think it's causing the issue because when I remove all of my code that uses this library, the upload works without issues. The code is as follows, where image.data is the image data from a Werkzeug filestorage instance:
image = Image.open(image.data)
if image.format == "PNG":
image.verify()
I save the image directly from the filestorage instance. I don't know why Pillow is corrupting the image and I need help fixing this or I need recommendations for different libraries I could use to validate the image.
|
|
|
|
|
<pre>Hi, can someone please help me with a task that I am struggling with.
I need to create a React app that:
○ Contains a Dropdown that allows a user to select which functionality
they want to use on my site. The options should be ‘Currency
converter’ and ‘Win!’.
○ Contains a component that converts currencies. This component
should be displayed when the user selects ‘Currency converter’ from
the Dropdown. The user should be able to enter a figure in dollars
and the app should calculate and display the amount in South
African Rands, UK pounds and Euros. The components that display
the converted values should be children of the conversion
component.</pre>
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you think you were given this assignment to learn how to do it?
They don't give you assignments that you can just knock out in a few minutes - they give you assignments that will make you extend what you should have already learned.
A question to ask yourself: if you are already looking for someone to do the "hard work" for you, what will you do as more difficult levels of programming arise? Maybe you should go into a field more suited to your personality and abilities
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The requirement request sounds like school work. It also shows no effort to solve the problem and has no specific issue we can help with.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
So when i use the mailto it will change the page to write the email.
But i want the user to open that in a new tab and have the possibility to change their email and not only use the default email that is on user's browser.
this is what i have:
<a href="mailto:myemail@gmail.com">myemail@gmai.com</a>
is possible to do that with mailto?
|
|
|
|
|
Although this is possible, but this would give a rather poor UX to the users; I would highly recommend that you just use the mailto prefix and let the user handle how they wish to send their email. This is easy, and beautiful in terms of UX/UI.
If you want to control this, then prevent the browser from handling the mailto link, this would mean that you need to control the click-event on the mailto hyperlink and then you also need to manage:
- Opening a new tab for the user
- Managing the actions of the user in that new tab
- Closing the tab after they are done
Which is a lot cumbersome. Any specific reasons to do this, so that we may help you better?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
I have 2 pages. 1st is the index.php that have 3 fields. 2 of them should saved to sql and its works fine and the 3rd one should pass the value to 2nd screen. I have JS file. I success doing these 2 operations successfuly but in seperated projects. When I am trying to make them together there are mistakes. I want to know How can I implement those 2 parts together please.
index.php
<pre><!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>PHP MySQL Insert Tutorial</title>
<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.3.min.js'></script>
</head>
<body>
<form action='insert.php' method='post' id='myform' >
<p>
<input type='text' name='username' placeholder='user name' id='username' />
</p>
<p>
<input type='text' name='password' placeholder='password' id='password' />
</p>
<p>
<input id = "minus" type="text" name="main" value="<?php echo $num1; ?>" autocomplete="off">
</p>
<button id='insert'>Insert</button>
<p id='result'></p>
</form>
</body>
</html>
2nd.php
<?php
session_start();
if(isset($_POST['Submit']))
{
$num_2 = "";
$pass_num = $_POST['main'];
}
?>
<h2>minus</h2>
<br>
<form method="post" action="index.php">
<input type="text" name="state" value="<?php echo $num_2;?>" autocomplete="off">
<br>
<input type="hidden" name="rrr" value="<?php echo $pass_num;?>" autocomplete="off">
<br>
<br>
<input name="Submit" type="submit" value="Submit">
</form>
jS
$('#myform').submit(function(){
return false;
});
$('#insert').click(function(){
$.post(
$('#myform').attr('action'),
$('#myform :input').serializeArray(),
function(result){
$('#result').php(result);
}
);
});
modified 21-Jul-20 7:04am.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I see right away: your 2nd.php form submit's to index.php but the values you pass from the form are never looked for in index.php.
So what's the point of that interaction?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
