On Jan 22, 2008 8:25 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2008 1:30 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-21 07:40]: > > > While we are at that - I do understand the need to divide the > > > operations into the 'indempotent' and 'non-indempotent' classes > > > (because of caching and predictive link loading) - but what is > > > really the practical argument for having two more classes (PUT > > > and DELETE)? > > > > I don't understand this question. It sounds like you have some > > confusion about several distinct things and that you don't > > actually understand what idempotence is. Can you try to explain > > a bit more what you are trying to ask? Are you just asking why > > there are more verbs than GET and POST? Are you asking about why > > it's important to categorise verbs as non-/safe in addition to > > non-/idempotent? Is it something all together different? > > The first one. Why you need to split the class of non-idempotent > operations into three more categories (POST, PUT and DELETE).
Just after sending it I have realized that DELETE can be also viewed as idempotent since a second call to it does not really change the state (even if it can return an error to the caller). And that shows another question - perhaps all we need is the simple division into safe and non-safe operations? -- Z. _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/