On Wednesday 2008.06.11, at 01:11 , Jerome Louvel wrote:
[...]
My conclusion is that the support of PUT with no entity is not
necessary for
now in Restlet. Any other opinion?
I concur.
It's totally nonsensical to have no entity at all for a put. That's
like trying to put a null into a col
ity is not necessary for
now in Restlet. Any other opinion?
Best regards,
Jerome
-Message d'origine-
De : Jerome Louvel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : jeudi 29 mai 2008 11:20
A : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
Objet : RE: PUT and entity
Hi Jim,
I have just sent an email to the REST
d'origine-
De : Jim Alateras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : jeudi 29 mai 2008 00:04
A : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
Objet : Re: PUT and entity
Rhett,
Yes, forgot i asked this question before. IMHO i wouldn't encode the
'put MUST have a non-null entity) policy in the fr
Rhett,
Yes, forgot i asked this question before. IMHO i wouldn't encode the
'put MUST have a non-null entity) policy in the framework. If you do
then you should provide for a mechanism to override it
(allowNullEntity or something). From my reading of the HTTP spec
doesn't specify that a
Hi Matthias,
I fully agree with your description. POP3 and SMTP are also stateful
protocols.
Best regards,
Jerome
-Message d'origine-
De : Matthias Wauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 27 mai 2008 23:17
À : discuss@restlet.tigris.org
Objet : RE: PUT and entity
J
r of allowing PUT requests
with an empty body. I agree with your arguments. Perhaps the original
poster on this thread could elaborate on his use-case or raise the
question on the REST-discuss list.
Bruno.
-Message d'origine-
De : news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Jerome Louvel schrieb:
> ... and I can see how to can be extended to FTP and many other ones. Of
course the quality of the mapping depends on the type of
protocol/scheme, for example whether or not it is stateless.
>
Just to make that clear, FTP is _not_ a stateless protocol. As
Richardson and Rub
7 matches
Mail list logo