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

Re: Does idempotence include the response codes?

From: Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:24:05 +0200
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA592E68-5E66-47AC-A053-2270E916C798@acm.org>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>

Le 16 oct. 2013 à 05:34, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> a écrit :

> On 16/10/2013 11:31 a.m., Philippe Mougin wrote:
>> Le 15 oct. 2013 à 23:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> a écrit :
>>> On 15/10/2013, at 1:17 PM, Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes. Adding "on the server" and an example would definitely help.
>>> Seems like a reasonable editorial clarification to me.
>> It wouldn't work as it would include in its scope methods that actually are not idempotent.
> 
> Which ones and how?

Methods idempotent with regard to state of the server but not idempotent with regard to other parts of reality.

For example, if I define a new request method, LAUNCH, with the following semantics : "The LAUNCH method requests that a new missile is prepared and launched. The LAUNCH method does not request modifications to the state of the server". 

This method would match the newly proposed definition of idempotent. However, if we consider the intended effect in general, launching multiple missiles has not the same effect as launching one missile. Therefore we do not want this method to be considered idempotent.

Best,

Philippe

PS: I do not encourage people to design methods that launch missiles.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 08:24:33 UTC

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