RE: PUT and entity

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 discuss list. Let's see what comes out of it to decide what to do

Re: PUT and entity

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

RE: PUT and entity

- 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

RE: PUT and entity

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

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 then you should provide for a mechanism to override it (allowNullEntity or something). From my reading of the HTTP spec doesn't specify that

RE: PUT and entity

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