Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9672Re: [rest-discuss] 30x Status codes

Expand Messages
  • Peter Lacey
    Oct 2 10:31 AM
      Stefan Tilkov wrote:
      > On Oct 2, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Peter Lacey wrote:
      >> The 303 status code is a good way
      >> to canonicalize your resources. You can make them available through many
      >> URIs, but only have one "real" URI per representation.
      > Which of course means an extra client/server roundtrip, which may or
      > may not be acceptable.
      > Stefan
      > --
      > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/
      It does, but the proper use of HTTP frequently requires multiple trips.
      Certainly redirects are common enough. And, if you want to treat them
      differently, there's also a few 2Xx responses after a POST/PUT that
      might encourage a client to go back to the server. HEAD and OPTION
      usually imply a future trip to the server, too. Also, in the case of a
      GET, the first trip is pretty lightweight; headers only. Similarly,
      form-based links that allow compliance with HATEOAS (God, I hate that
      term) requires an extra trip. Want to look up a person? Can you
      construct a link, e.g., http://example.com/users?first_name="Stefan" ?
      Not without, getting a form first. Finally, 303s mean a cache can store
      less information, and perform the redirection on the server's behalf.
      Ultimately, though, circumstances will help you decide whether the
      expense of a 303 outweighs simply returning the resource.

      -- Pete
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic