Hi all, At the lower API level, we don't differentiate the HEAD from the GET methods, see the org.restlet.Uniform class and subclasses like Restlet.
However, at the higher API levels, at the org.restlet.resource.Resource level especially, we do go further by adding implicit support for content negotiation, conditional methods, HEAD implementation based on GET, etc. If you want to gain full control, you can always build Restlet/Filter subclasses. However, I agree with the fact that the Resource.handleGet/handleHead methods are a bit confusing, that's why we'll move them to the Finder class in 1.1. Best regards, Jerome > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Erik Hetzner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mardi 9 octobre 2007 18:49 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: HEAD not well supported? > > At Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:35:00 +0000 (UTC), > Sean Landis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Regarding my previous comments regarding a test using curl; > it appears curl > > is hung up on the fact that content length has a value and > there is no > > entity. I did determine that Restlet does remove the > content. Sorry for being > > misleading on that point. > > It does appear that curl is wrong here. I have filed a bug report at > <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1810 > 273&group_id=976&atid=100976> > > You can obtain correct behavior by using the -I/--head option instead > of -X HEAD, which is good to know. > > > I'd say that Restlet meets the requirements of the spec and that's > > good. Although I still think it would be better to leverage Uniform > > entirely and it seems awkward to me that HEAD is an exception. > > > > My understanding of REST is that HEAD is part of the uniform > > interface and therefore should be supported in the same way, and to > > the same extent as the rest of the HTTP methods. I was very > > surprised when HEAD did not conform to the programming model in > > place for the uniform interface and I suspect others would be too. > > I dont understand what you mean here by uniform interface. Uniform > interface in REST refer to inter-application semantics, not > intra-application. And it doesnt, to my understanding, mean that HEAD > & GET must have identical semantics, rather that the semantics of a > GET or HEAD request be the same for all resources. Am I > misunderstanding you here? > > best, > Erik Hetzner > ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library > ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3 >
