My rule of thumb for PUT is that afterwards, if I GET a
representation from the same resource, it should give me back what I
sent in the first place (unless it's been separately changed in the
meantime). You also have to account for transcoding.
Cheers,
On 2006/04/22, at 9:51 PM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
* If "/books/4" represents the "record", the PUT would need to
contain _everything_ about that record; synthesizing additional
fields (like last modified) seems like 'cheating', and
inconsistent with PUT semantics
Could you tell me what other resources than http://www.w3.org/
Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html expand on this interpretation
of PUT? My naive reading of 9.6 PUT seems to be that it talks all
about updating and modifying. Not necessarily only complete
replacements. But I'm new here, so perhaps I just have an
incomplete picture.
I will say that PUT would seem a ton more useful if it didn't have
as strict a usage pattern as you imply. If that's the case, PUT
seems to be unusable for most web application purposes. And if
that's the case, I really question whether its worth doing other-
verbs-over-post mapping at all in Rails. Doesn't seem worth the
trouble just to get DELETE.
--
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.37signals.com -- Basecamp, Backpack, Writeboard, Tada
http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
