Re: On PUT vs. POST -- A pointer to clarification...

[M. David Peterson]

One thing I forgot to update,

<httpHandlers>
     <add verb="GET,HEAD" path="*.omx"
       type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
     <add verb="GET, HEAD" path="*.atom"
       type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
     <add verb="POST" path="*.create"
       type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
     <add verb="PUT" path="*.update"
       type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
     <add verb="DELETE" path="*.delete"
       type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
   </httpHandlers>

Obviously disallowing HEAD against an existing atom feed would be a poor decision.

On 6/7/06, M. David Peterson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I'm good to go.  Thanks for this... was exactly what I needed.
>
> Just to be sure that I have my usage of the extensions in proper
> order, this is what I will be changing the Web.config file to specify
> as the verbs that are associated with each extension.  Obviously what
> happens internally is really what matter most, and the user will never
> need to worry about any of this, as it will be completely transparent,
> except for the actual extension piece which is what I am hoping can be
> used as a way to "self check" that the action they want to implement
> is, in fact, what is about to take place.
>
> If anybody can see anything wrong with this approach, please feel free
> to blow it out of the water.  I'm not worried about being wrong now,
> and instead about being wrong later.
>
> <httpHandlers>
>       <add verb="GET,HEAD" path="*.omx"
>         type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
>       <add verb="GET" path="*.atom"
>         type=" Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
>       <add verb="POST" path="*.create"
>         type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
>       <add verb="PUT" path="*.update"
>         type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
>       <add verb="DELETE" path="*.delete"
>         type="Extf.Net.AspNetHandler" />
>     </httpHandlers>
>
> On 6/7/06, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm only two paragraphs in and can clearly see this is EXACTLY what I needed.
> >
> > Thanks!  I appreciate your help :)
> >
> > On 6/7/06, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 6/7/06, Joe Gregorio < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is nice explaination:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/web-development/2005/12/08/post-vs-put/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!  Will read this now.
> > >
> > > > And no, the use of PUT and POST in the APP is not
> > > > the opposite of what is stated in RFC 2616, it is quite
> > > > in line with RFC 2616.
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting the explanation that I attached was not poorly
> > > written/worded such as to be confusing, just that the way it reads
> > > seems to suggest the opposite.  Again, not in any way, shape, or form,
> > > attempting to start a war, and instead simply try to gain
> > > understanding.  The way the RFC 2616 is worded, it seems to suggest
> > > that the two do not match.  None-the-less, with full understanding of
> > > who's behind the development of the APP spec, I can only assume I
> > > simply need to gain a greater understanding of RFC 2616.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   -joe
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Joe Gregorio         http://bitworking.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > <M:D/>
> > >
> > > M. David Peterson
> > > http://www.xsltblog.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <M:D/>
> >
> > M. David Peterson
> > http://www.xsltblog.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> M. David Peterson
> http://www.xsltblog.com/
>


--
<M:D/>

M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/