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

Re: [rest-discuss] Clarification of PUT

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Winter
    ... ok. moved from rest-explore... ... Do intermediaries actually depend on this or is it just the semantics of the method itself? ... The SOAP PUT issue was
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 9, 2002
      > Probably more a rest-discuss question, but ..

      ok. moved from rest-explore...

      >> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:55:07AM -0400, Jeffrey Winter wrote:
      >> When PUTing a representation, is it the requirement that the
      >> entity-body will be stored as-is, or only that the representation
      >> not vary on GET?
      >>
      >> So in other words, if I accept the following PUT:
      >>
      >> <a><b/></a>
      >>
      >> is it okay to respond to a GET with:
      >>
      >> <a>
      >> <b/>
      >> </a>

      > No.

      Do intermediaries actually depend on this or is it just the
      semantics of the method itself?

      >> so long as that response does vary based on the headers?
      >> Or is the expectation that GET actually responds with
      >> the exact same representation that was PUT?

      > Yes.
      >
      > This is why we need "SET", which could do this. SET could be used with
      > SOAP, while PUT can't (at least as you'd expect it to be used).

      The SOAP PUT issue was actually one of the issues that I was
      wondering about. How could it really work at all?

      Do you envision this "SET" method allowing partial resource updates?
    • Matt Gushee
      ... Has it been stipulated somewhere that the GET request is asking for the same representation type that was PUT? If not, I don t understand why that wouldn t
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 9, 2002
        On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Jeffrey Winter wrote:

        > >> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:55:07AM -0400, Jeffrey Winter wrote:
        > >> When PUTing a representation, is it the requirement that the
        > >> entity-body will be stored as-is, or only that the representation
        > >> not vary on GET?
        > >>
        > >> So in other words, if I accept the following PUT:
        > >>
        > >> <a><b/></a>
        > >>
        > >> is it okay to respond to a GET with:
        > >>
        > >> <a>
        > >> <b/>
        > >> </a>
        >
        > > No.

        Has it been stipulated somewhere that the GET request is asking for the
        same representation type that was PUT? If not, I don't understand why
        that wouldn't be allowed. The two documents would appear to be variant
        representations of the same resource (or perhaps I should say of each
        other, since we don't know what the resource is).

        --
        Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way,
        Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through
        mgushee@... its fields;
        http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way,
        Horses bear soldiers through
        its streets.

        --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.