W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: idempotence of POST

From: Joris Dobbelsteen <joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:35:21 +0100
To: "'Dave Oxley'" <david.oxley@workplace-systems.plc.uk>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20031122163400.19B46137F2@dr-nick.w3.org>

Dave,

I'm not aware of any such implementation.

Perhaps you can make it work with the URL parameters.
Much like search engines do.

Having POST/PUT idempotence would be imcompatible with many applications
(and the protocol itself).

- Joris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Oxley
> Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:48
> To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: idempotence of POST
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1996SepDec/0059.html>
> 
> This was a message from '96 that I found with a Google 
> search. Was this ever implemented and how? If not, is there 
> another way to achieve this?
> 
>    a) allow GET to take a body
>    b) add a new method, GET-with-body (spelled how you like)
>    c) allow the return value of POST to indicate that the request
>       can be repeated safely.
> 
> Please reply off list as I'm not subscribed. Cheers.
> Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star 
> Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more 
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working around 
> the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 22 November 2003 11:34:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:25 GMT