>>>>> "terrel" == Terrel Shumway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
terrel> On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 15:49, Ian Bicking wrote: >> To me that doesn't seem to make sense. All the actions in WebDAV >> are represented as methods (GET, COPY, etc). In a browser it's >> different -- the methods are really only GET and POST, which are >> overloaded with other semantics anyway. So you have to represent >> the action differently, basically through variables. >> >> I think it makes most sense to only have the resource name in the >> URL, i.e., /articles/500. Or maybe /article-500, since the >> "articles" collection is not really that meaningful, it only says >> what "500" is supposed to refer to. I'm not sure which one is >> best. terrel> /articles/ does make sense as an index page that will terrel> display a list of available articles or allow you to search terrel> for one. Sure, and more to the point, whether GET /articles returns anything at all other than 404, GET /articles/500 is a perfectly sane use of a HTTP method on a member-uri, /articles/500, of a DAV collection, /articles. As far as I can tell, the DAV RFC says conformant implementations must implement DAV collections; maybe /articles isn't a very good example name of one, but it's pretty clear that it is. >> OTOH, both actions might be possible, with different semantics terrel> That is too spooky. I like /articles/500/?action=delete Hmm, once more: GET is supposed to be idempotent *and* safe. terrel> I agree. GET should be idempotent unless there is a clear terrel> indication otherwise such as terrel> "/?action=this+will+change+your+document+forever" or terrel> "/?bill=charge+my+visa&amount=5+zillion+dollars" Those are idempotent, afaict. :> Idempotent doesn't mean 'side-effect free'; it means "repeated applications have the same effect as the first one" (for some pretty vaguely undefined time span, though). In the *WebDAV* context, using anything but DELETE to delete a resource (or, more precisely, "remove it from urispace") is prima facie wrong, in my view. terrel> (CountVisits is OK, because the intent is clear from the terrel> content.) It's still idempotent because each GET does the same thing, namely, return the *current state* of the resource identified by the URI; that that resource has variable parts is not pertinent to whether the method that returns its current state is idempotent. At least, that's how I see it. :> Best, Kendall Clark _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
