W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Does idempotence include the response codes?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:12:04 +0200
Message-ID: <525E6674.2020708@gmx.de>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-10-16 11:52, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 16 octobre 2013 11:47, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
>> Le Mer 16 octobre 2013 06:00, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
>>> The main idea behind idempotence is to know whether or not a client can
>>> safely resend a request that failed because of network errors. For
>>> example,
>>> sending a request over an established connection may result in an error
>>> if
>>> the server decided to close at the same time. But the client has no way
>>> to
>>> know if the request was considered or not, so it must resend it. If the
>>> previous request was correctly processed, the second one may return an
>>> error, but it's the client's job to handle this. I can give you an
>>> example
>>> here with unix commands :
>> I'm not sure I agree with the example, I've seen cases where idempotence
>> is a much stronger property.
>> For example, since GET is idempotent, that means a malware checker service
>> can replay (before or after the browser) get requests to check if the
>> result is dangerous or not. And it does not affect the result the browser
>> will receive on its own GET.
>> If you say mv is an example of idempotence, that means all the broken
>> websites that transform GETs into implicit POSTs are right, since the
>> first GET destroys the result the following GET could expect.
>> IMHO idempotence means a replay of the same command will give the same
>> result, baring errors, website reorganisations, and data changes (when the
>> request exposes some dynamic data store)
> Or to put it more succinctly an idempotent method must not trigger by
> itself a state change server-side. Is that clear and short enough for
> everyone?

Clear, short, and incorrect.

You are confusing idempotency with safeness.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 10:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC