Re: [rest-discuss] Atom, 'process-this'-POST and rockets
- On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Bill de hOra wrote:
> Walden Mathews wrote:IMO, POST adds to the game the ability to request a resource creation
> > 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
> It's like having English without "just do it".
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". 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
 To use the term from the app-features draft:
> POST is uniformly devoid of meaning; anything will fit into it,
> which is
> why it's degenerate (aka grunting) compared to the other methods.
> is why approaches from html forms to WS to MEST like using it, they
> 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
> 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