W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Making MGET more GET-friendly?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:26:05 +0200
Message-Id: <448B9AB4-7357-11D8-83FC-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
To: "ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <dirkx@asemantics.com>


On Mar 10, 2004, at 23:25, ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 10, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
>>>> No, I meant MGET here. I was proposing that you could continue to 
>>>> get
>>>
>>> Ok - so you still need some code in the agents.
>>
>> No more so than for GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc. etc.
>
> sure - you need to add one.

???

A programmer needs to set the HTTP method in the code. They
type something like

    x.setHttpRequestMethod ("XXXX");

Now, whether they type the four characters P-O-S-T or
the four characters M-G-E-T exactly where is URIQA forcing
them to "add" anything to the methodology/architecture
being employed?!

In either case, they have to type explicit characters in
their code to express what they want the server to do.

There is nothing here being "added" to the architecture.

>
>> URIQA does not increase implementational burden on the client side.
>
> Beyond some extra code to do just that; MGET.

Not *extra* code. Just *different* code.

That's a non-trivial distinction.

Extra code means more work than otherwise. Different
code means the same amount of effort, just different.

Patrick

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 07:26:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC