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

9673Re: [rest-discuss] 30x Status codes

Expand Messages
  • Brandon Carlson
    Oct 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      agreed. 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
      indefinitely.

      Thanks!
      brandon

      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
      > --
      > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic