Re: [rest-discuss] Atom, 'process-this'-POST and rockets
- Walden Mathews wrote:
>I think it is. HTTP without POST is an interesting gedanken experiment.
> Of course not, the rabbit is the entity.
> But I can see this is going nowhere. Did you have a point to make
> about POST being degenerate (whatever you mean by that)? Is
> this something we need to care about?
It's like having English without "just do it".
POST is uniformly devoid of meaning; anything will fit into it, which is
why it's degenerate (aka grunting) compared to the other methods. Which
is why approaches from html forms to WS to MEST like using it, they can
defer protocol decision making, or make point to point decisions that
don't have to be globally consistent.
In a two verb web with that kind of thinking, all GET provides over POST
is a switch for caches and form handlers.
- On 1/9/07, Nic James Ferrier <nferrier@...> wrote:
>As long as we are being brutally honest about how things work
> I think Elliotte is correct that we could fix the problem by getting
> the proxy makers to change their proxies.
> However, how long would it take to fix the problem. The big
> organization that I was referring to had (amongst others) a Novell
> Netware proxy server. It was at least 10 years old.
> I recently made a trip to a medium sized company who were still using
> Microsoft Proxy Server 1.0. I don't even want to think about how old
> that is.
in *the real world*, I'll just point out that if some VP
discovered that he couldn't edit his blog from his shiny new Nokia phone
because the proxy server blocked PUT requests, then that proxy would
get changed so fast it would make your eyes bleed.
To put this in perspective we're talking about a configuration
option on an HTTP proxy/firewall in a company that 11 years
ago was probably running SNA over token ring. To pretend that
things will stay the same as they are today is, at best, delusional.
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org