On 7/18/07, Erik Hetzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> PUT is also "must be" idempotent precisely because multiple puts of
> the same stuff to the same place gives the same results.
Again, to be clear, and I believe this is the crux of our
disagreement:
9.1.2.
| Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
| from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
| requests is the same as for a single request.
This means side effects, server state changes, not response bodies or
response status codes.
(A) Well, to refer to authority... :-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=idempotent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence_(computer_science)
(B) I agree that we seem to disagree on what that parenthetical remark
means. I find your interpretation to be wrong w.r.t. what idempotent
means. As you might expect from the thread so far, I take a strict
view on the definition. The RFC isn't helping anything, IMHO, by being
so wishy-washy in its explanation. At this point, since we're
disagreeing about the basics of a pretty straightforward definition,
I'm not sure that there's anything else that I can say that may help.
Take care,
John
