W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:55:51 -0700
Message-Id: <FB9A21CF-1E23-4FBC-9CE1-D7BC1BC66CF7@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

How is it more constraining to allow responses other than 201? This  
effectively forces the server to inform the client of the location of  
*any* resource that happens to be created by a PUT, whether or not  
that is useful or relevant information.

At the end of the day, this isn't really a testable requirement, so  
it's not a big deal; was just wondering what was in people's minds  
when this was written.

On 2006/04/03, at 6:01 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> On 4/3/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> If a new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the
>>> user agent via the 201 (Created) response.
>> So, if I PUT something to /foo, and it has the side effect if
>> creating /foo;2006-04-03, is the response required to be a 201  
>> Created?
> Seems so.
>> I.e., read literally, the above requirement requires a 201 Created
>> when PUT results in *any* resource being created -- even as a side
>> effect.
>> This is IMO unnecessarily constraining, and should be relaxed; e.g.,
>> changed to something like
>> "If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, the origin server
>> MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response."
> Hmm, *that* seems more constraining to me; could the server not just
> return a Location header with value "/foo;2006-04-03" in the 201?
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 01:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC