- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:20:48 +0200
- To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- CC: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Robert Brewer wrote: > Helge Hess wrote: >> On 20.10.2008, at 20:39, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> I think this is better, according to what you quoted above: >>>> S: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently >>>> S: Location: /folder/bar >>>> S: >>>> S: Do it there >>>> C: PUT /folder/bar >>>> C: ... >>> Of course that's not going to work in practice, as Cyrus pointed > out. >> Thats exaggerated. Lets see where the requirement comes from. Its >> originated in servers which use an RDBMS as the storage. Such servers >> do not want to maintain an additional namespace for DAV but just want >> to use the records primary key as the relative resource name. >> >> Example: PUT /new.txt => Location: 1.txt, PUT /new.txt => Location: >> 2.txt, etc. > > Sure looks to me like PUT is not idempotent for that process. Correct. Also, and again: what is the "special" request-URI? Either it needs to be hard-wired, or client needs a way to discover it, or there's no way to have a collection that supports both user-defined and server-defined URIs. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:21:35 UTC