W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: server applying PUT to a resource other than the request-URI

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:20:48 +0200
Message-ID: <48FCE820.40607@gmx.de>
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.


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 

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:47 UTC