Erik Hetzner <erik.hetzner <at> ucop.edu> writes: > I don’t understand what the issue is here? Can you not override > handleHead?
Yes you could but there's already a programming model for dealing with HTTP methods. One could argue handle*() methods could be final for example. Why exclude HEAD from that model? > Why should you special case getRepresentation? Because HEAD shouldn't necessarily return a representation. > The representation should be the same. No, a very common use case is to use HEAD to get meta-data about a resource to decide whether to call GET. For example, if the representation could be extremely large. > Presumably (correct me if I’m wrong, Restlet > authors) when sending a response to a head request back to the client > the server simply won’t make a call to get the actual content of the > representation. In almost every way the response to the HEAD request > should be the same to a GET, so it makes sense to share the logic. Are you saying there's some place in Restlet where the entity is striped out in the case of HEAD? You might be right, although I didn't see it. Regardless, that makes unreasonable assumptions about the intent for HEAD. > Also, intuitively allowHead is a bit redundant, since any resource > that allows a GET really should allow a HEAD. That was John's point which I agree with. Default is true. Sean > > best, > Erik Hetzner >
