Would it be okay to do this if the server responds with a '202 Accepted'?
Looking at section 5.2 it only mentions returning 201, but by previous conversations on the list, it looks like that is allowed. Is it? In a situation like that, do you still have to return a location? (even if a GET on that location returns 401) It seems to me that a 202 with no location would be fine. The client has no way to track the post, but that's kinda the point of a WRITE-only server. What do you think? Should the spec be made more explicit as to whether this is allowed or not? Daniel E. Renfer (http://kronkltd.net/) On 5/14/06, Bill Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think servers should be free to list read-only resources (w/ no > "edit" link relation) or omit them as is situationally appropriate. Except he's not asking about READ-only, he's asking about WRITE-only. Is there some mechanism for determining that the endpoint is write-only? I could see where not being able to post back to an item that's become 'write-only' in that it's no longer editable. But I'm not sure how convenient it's going to be for tool to dump something to an endpoint without being able to turn around and retrieve it again. I can see where some situations would find it appealing to use a write-only interface but wonder if they're anything more than edge cases? -Bill Kearney Syndic8.com
