On Wednesday 2009.02.25, at 16:51 , Luis Saenz wrote: [...] > Yeah, your suggestion to use the post/redirect/get pattern is a > great way to solve this issue, but it violates my first stated > constraint -- a synchronous solution. :)
It is a synchronous solution -- it's just not a blocking solution. That actually makes it easier to deal with relative to some network problems. > The only reason I want a synchronous solution is for simplicity -- > to support lowest common denominator clients such as curl, without > requiring the user of the API to write a script with logic such as > what you propose below. However, no argument that adding this > asynchronous complexity would solve the problem. I missed your original post so forgive my ignorance but you seem to have multiple, conflicting desires... Do you want a single blocking request/response or do you want to be more sensitive/reactive to more problematic network issues? In terms of your mention of chunking things, I'm afraid I must be missing something as it seems like you're making things more complicated in terms of trying to do too much in one step. Can you perhaps explain what you're really trying to do -- particularly with respect to what your notions of the transactions? Thanks, John ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=1230999
