Pagaltzis)
For the last point, an alternative would be to use a Boolean
value/representation to represent the presence or absence of the right,
instead of relying on HTTP status codes.
My conclusion is that the support of PUT with no entity is not necessary for
now in Restlet. Any other opinion?
Best
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
-
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 framework. If you do
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
Jerome
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
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 Ruby
6 matches
Mail list logo
