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

Re: [rest-discuss] Implementing MONITOR

Expand Messages
  • Jan Algermissen
    ... Hmm...yes. what is the problem with this? Or in other words: why is this a problem in the case of MONITOR but not a problem for the other methods? Or am I
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Seth Johnson wrote:
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@...>
      > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:30:55 +0100
      > Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Implementing MONITOR
      >
      > > Seth Johnson wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Is not the following the real issue here:
      > > >
      > > > The Reply-To URL would expect particular structures of
      > > > representations of the monitored resource's state that the
      > > > monitored resource will POST to it. How do you make a MONITOR
      > > > method that monitored resources would generically know how to
      > > > handle, given this requirement?
      > >
      > > With an additional header that allows content negotiation to take
      > > place at the time of the MONITOR request. Propably "Notify-Accept"
      > > with the same semantics as "Accept".
      >
      > So the monitored resource would have to only POST existing
      > standard "content types?"

      Hmm...yes. what is the problem with this? Or in other words: why
      is this a problem in the case of MONITOR but not a problem for
      the other methods?

      Or am I misunderstanding your point?

      Jan

      >
      > Seth Johnson

      --
      Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
      Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org
    • Seth Johnson
      ... Well, I think that POST is supposed to be much more flexible than that. But I m not sure it matters, after all. Seth Johnso -- DRM is Theft! We are the
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Jan Algermissen wrote:
        >
        > Seth Johnson wrote:
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@...>
        > > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:30:55 +0100
        > > Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Implementing MONITOR
        > >
        > > So the monitored resource would have to only POST existing
        > > standard "content types?"
        >
        > Hmm...yes. what is the problem with this? Or in other words: why
        > is this a problem in the case of MONITOR but not a problem for
        > the other methods?
        >
        > Or am I misunderstanding your point?


        Well, I think that POST is supposed to be much more flexible than that. But
        I'm not sure it matters, after all.

        Seth Johnso


        --

        DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!

        New Yorkers for Fair Use
        http://www.nyfairuse.org

        [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

        I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
        this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be
        attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
        usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
        exclusive rights.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.