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

Re: [rest-discuss] new wiki page: Http Methods Support

Expand Messages
  • Bill de hÓra
    ... I m not. This only works if the syntax is uniform as well. Otherwise we re in codec hell. Uniform syntax + semantics could work. Bill de hÓra
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Baker wrote:

      > BTW, I should also mention that I think that Tim's solution is
      > "good enough". Tunneling is bad, but tunneling uniform semantics
      > ("delete") makes it bearable. As long as PUT and DELETE are also
      > supported, I'm happy.

      I'm not. This only works if the syntax is uniform as well. Otherwise
      we're in codec hell. Uniform syntax + semantics could work.

      Bill de hÓra
    • Bill de hÓra
      ... Mark, True, but you only need extensions in this case to workaround the clients. The core problem is at the client, not HTTP, which has all the methods we
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 12, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Baker wrote:


        > There's a middle ground here. It's not perfectly RESTful, but is more
        > so than the everything-with-POST approach. And what's making it
        > unRESTful is HTTP's lack of mandatory extensions (at least I think
        > that's the only thing).

        Mark,

        True, but you only need extensions in this case to workaround the
        clients. The core problem is at the client, not HTTP, which has all
        the methods we need to get the job done already.

        Nonetheless, thanks for this. I'm going to have a crack at
        implementing it for that reliable exchange application I mentioned
        elsewhere, so I can the map application onto HTML forms.

        Bill de hÓra
      • sa3ruby
        Any thoughts on this: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients ? - Sam Ruby
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 12, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
        • bhaugen32
          ... Is that something you can discuss in more detail? For example, what do you mean by reliable delivery exchange ?
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill de hÓra wrote:

            > I'm working on a reliable delivery exchange over HTTP and I'm
            > running into similar problems as CarrotVsOrange.

            Is that something you can discuss in more detail?
            For example, what do you mean by "reliable delivery exchange"?
          • Bill de hÓra
            ... It s a formalization of a problem I keep running into with WS and HTTP inter-administrative integrations. For my money, once you can reliably transfer
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              bhaugen32 wrote:
              > Bill de hÓra wrote:
              >
              >
              >>I'm working on a reliable delivery exchange over HTTP and I'm
              >>running into similar problems as CarrotVsOrange.
              >
              >
              > Is that something you can discuss in more detail?

              It's a formalization of a problem I keep running into with WS and
              HTTP inter-administrative integrations. For my money, once you can
              reliably transfer documents using client-server HTTP, a considerable
              number of unneccesary WS specs can be canned.


              > For example, what do you mean by "reliable delivery exchange"?

              Once and only once delivery, on a pure client-server HTTP model, no
              extensions a la WebDAV/HTTPR, based on the five packet handshake
              protocol (parties exchange a token to begin with), state inspectable
              by third parties.

              But truthfully, in a commercial setting, I mean this - if it doesn't
              get from A to B, just once, my ass is on the line. The purpose of
              the protocol is to fulfil a business need at a low cost. Most of the
              customers I work with are concerned about being locked-in to magic
              black boxes, so opening the protocol is important in that respect.

              Paul Prescod wrote up a great one pager on this a few years back on
              a model where the client and server exchange a URI token, and a lot
              of my understanding on what you can and can't do regarding reliable
              communications on the Internet came from Miles Sabin. I think you
              need a wee bit more than Paul outlined, but a hell of a lot less
              than any of the reliable-over-HTTP protocols I've seen.

              It's not baked yet, the main issues are what resource the URI token
              names (I think it's the exchange and not the message) and the
              PUT/DELETE debacle (well, I think it's a debacle :)

              Bill de hÓra
            • Mark Baker
              Erm, yah, that s the idea. Nice job. 8-) P.S. I tried to get SOAP 1.2 to support body-less envelopes for exactly the reason you really need them there. The
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 14, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Erm, yah, that's the idea. Nice job. 8-)

                P.S. I tried to get SOAP 1.2 to support body-less envelopes for exactly
                the reason you really need them there. The WG didn't like that idea.
                But I'd just make the body empty in those case; no need to duplicate
                what SOAPAction already makes clear.

                On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:13:15PM -0400, sa3ruby wrote:
                > Any thoughts on this:
                >
                > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients
              • djpowell.geo
                ... I implemented something recently that used Apache CGI to do it s own hand-rolled Basic auth. A trick that you can use to get Apache to supply a
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 15, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "sa3ruby" <rubys@i...> wrote:
                  > Any thoughts on this:
                  >
                  > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients
                  >
                  > ?
                  >
                  > - Sam Ruby


                  I implemented something recently that used Apache CGI to do it's own
                  hand-rolled Basic auth. A trick that you can use to get Apache to
                  supply a Authorization header to CGI scripts is to use these
                  directives in a .htaccess file:

                  RewriteEngine on
                  RewriteCond %{HTTP:authorization} (.*)
                  RewriteRule .* - [E=HTTP_AUTHORIZATION:%1]

                  Is there any other reason that you need to use a different name?
                  Remember that the "Authorization" header has special semantics in
                  section 14.8 - shared caches may not cache the replies to requests
                  that were sent with this header, unless arrangements are made to
                  specifically make them cacheable.

                  --
                  Dave
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.