At Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:33:29 -0700, "John D. Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (A) Well, to refer to authority... :-) > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=idempotent > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence_(computer_science)
I agree that the definition of idempotence there conflicts with that in RFC 2626. But, with respect, we are not discussing the principle of idempotence as defined on wikipedia, but that in RFC 2616. > (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. It’s not a parenthetical remark: it is the definition of idempotence in the context of RFC 2616. This is the definition of idempotence in RFC 2616. It has to do with ‘side effects’, and only side effects. I don’t believe this is my own, personal, idiosyncratic interpretation. <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/2628> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/2612> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/2629> Some more to do with DELETE: <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/2626> But, you’re right. If we disagree about the definition, we’re not going to get very far. best, Erik Hetzner ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
pgpOvbiLr7WDe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
