W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Idempotent partial updates

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVWnKJ4nPa6PpQNry_uSxpB8xSJ4XFoFVx77wERV8Q+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2012/2/29 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>:
> It also desirable that idempotent methods are used for idempotent
> actions,

Actually, a server has to be prepared for the consequences if it
treats idempotent requests in a non-idempotent fashion.  Clients (and
intermediaries) should not bear the responsibility for bad code...

> but using requests defined as non-idempotent for idempotent
> actions do not cause any breakage, only slight loss of efficiency.

Depends on the axis you use for measuring efficiency.  I somewhat like
the resiliency afforded by idempotent operations and prefer to use
POST and PATCH in a way that they are effectively idempotent, within
the context of the application.  So retrying doesn't result in waste
of other types (orphaned state, etc).
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 00:35:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT