W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:11:35 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90B49@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> Sent: 12 February, 2003 17:49
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote,
> > > > Also, how do you PUT/DELETE/POST to that metadata, just 
> using the
> > > > Metadata: header? It seems morally equivalent to a set 
> of M(XXXX)
> > > > methods which has the same problem.
> > >
> > > It _is_ the moral of Patricks M(XXX) methods ... but _without_ the
> > > problems ;-)
> >
> > Ummm... what problems ;-)
> Umm ... I'm repeating myself.
> Show me how to send an MGET request using the standard Java 
> HTTP client. 

That's a practical problem caused by (short sighted) limitations
of the Java SDK. It's not a technical problem with the proposal.

I'm asking for technical problems.

> I'm looking at it's source code right now and the only methods 
> supported are GET, POST, HEAD, OPTIONS, PUT, DELETE and TRACE. If you 
> tried to do setRequestMethod("MGET") you'd have a ProtocolException 
> thrown at you explaining the "MGET" is an invalid HTTP method.
> I'm only using Java as an example because I'm intimately 
> familiar with 
> it's implementation. But I'd be astonished if there weren't 
> many, many 
> other HTTP client toolkits which behaved similarly. Which 
> means that as 
> it stands your proposal is dependent on widespread software upgrades.

No. Not software upgrades. SDK/API upgrades. Existing software that
has not needed to use the new methods will continue to not need to
use the new methods.

And a simple tweak of the SDK (probably just commenting out or
changing a few lines relating to the thrown exception, fixes that
problem *in the SDK* for all future applications.

> You might not see that as a problem, but I do ;-)

Practical, yes. Technical, no.

Do you see any *technical* problems with the MGET proposal?

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC