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

Re: [rest-discuss] Atom, 'process-this'-POST and rockets

Expand Messages
  • Jan Algermissen
    ... IMO, POST adds to the game the ability to request a resource creation from a specific server. When I only have PUT, I can find out whether a PUT succeeds,
    Message 1 of 70 , Dec 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Bill de hOra wrote:

      > Walden Mathews wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > 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?
      >
      > I think it is. HTTP without POST is an interesting gedanken
      > experiment.
      > It's like having English without "just do it".
      IMO, POST adds to the game the ability to request a resource creation
      from a specific server. When I only have PUT, I can find out whether
      a PUT succeeds, but I have no way of creating my resource 'as a
      subordinate' of another resource. IOW, I have no idea how or if the
      server is managing my new resource.

      With the availability of POST, a server can tell me: "This resource
      accepts data submission; it accepts this and that media type *and*
      the server can tell me that the accepting resource has "certain
      abstract behaviour"[1]. It is a difference to store (PUT) information
      on a server that does versioning vs on one that does not. POST gives
      me the ability to store stuff 'under the management' of a certain
      resource.

      Jan

      [1] To use the term from the app-features draft:
      http://tools.ietf.org/wg/atompub/draft-snell-atompub-
      feature-01.txt





      >
      > 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.
      >
      > cheers
      > Bill
      >
      >
    • Joe Gregorio
      ... As long as we are being brutally honest about how things work in *the real world*, I ll just point out that if some VP discovered that he couldn t edit his
      Message 70 of 70 , Jan 17, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1/9/07, Nic James Ferrier <nferrier@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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.

        As long as we are being brutally honest about how things work
        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

        --
        Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.