On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Markus Lanthaler ... I think the server has every right to suggest to the client how it expects a link to be processed. AndJan 11, 2012 1 of 245View SourceOn Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@...> wrote:To answer Darrel's earlier question:I agree, but that entirely depends upon the client. The server should not
> From the perspective of a client that conforms to the hypermedia
> I would disagree. De-referencing a LO has a different effect on the
> state than de-referencing an LE.
even know what the client is doing. Putting that information on the server
side doesn't make any sense to me.
Imagine a client whose task it is to retrieve the first embedded image in a
given Web page. I think you would agree that even though the server
specifies it as <img>, i.e., LE the client state would be changed to
"success" after retrieving that image. Or do you disagree with that?
So my argument was that it is impossible to specify on the server side
whether a link is LE or LO because it is entirely up to the client to do
decide how the link is interpreted. All the server can do is to describe the
"meaning" respectively the relation of the link to the current
representation.I think the server has every right to suggest to the client how it expects a link to be processed. And the client has every right to ignore that advice at it's own risk.For me, one of the benefits of REST has been the ability to move logic to the server that previously had to be done on the client. This makes my client much thinner and dumber :-) Which is a good thing for me because it facilitates independent evolution.I think the difference of perspective comes from the fact that some people are trying to put data on the web that smart clients are going to consume for unknown purposes. I'm not, I'm trying to make an application available on the web. I want to expose a bunch of knobs and levers and switches that user-agents can manipulate to "get stuff done".Regarding your specific question about the status of a client after a LE request. It is up to the client what to do about the status of LE requests. I see the client status as the aggregate of an LO and subsequent LE requests. A client may decide to ignore some failed LE requests, like a browser does if it can't return an image. Some LE requests may be considered critical. The link relation would need to specify that, IMHO.Darrel
... The way i read that post, message type is a way for the client to inform the server how it has decided to use a particular link. Not a way for the serverJan 12, 2012 245 of 245View SourceOn Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Darrel Miller <darrel.miller@...> wrote:
> In thisThe way i read that post, message type is a way for the client to
> post http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Unifying---standardizing-X-Moz---X-Purpose-headers-p29794338.html Roy
> talks about the notion of passive links in Waka. Without putting works into
> Roy's mouth, this is what I consider to be a LE.
inform the server how it has decided to use a particular link. Not a
way for the server to tell the client how it should use a particular
link. Ie, it would be ok for a client to dereference a `img` tag link
as an active request (or any other valid value, for that matter).