9673Re: [rest-discuss] 30x Status codes
- Oct 2, 2007agreed. Because the 303 is already pretty lightweight I think it would
be ok. I suppose however that it entirely depends on the client's
caching strategy. When recieving a 303, should the client discontinue
using the source URI for subsequent calls, if so, for how long? When
should it return to the source?
In my case, the dates really are a snapshot in time and will never
change once created so the target of the redirect can be cached
On 10/2/07, Stefan Tilkov <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 Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>