W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 17:13:12 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Message-id: <001401c32494$efb0b180$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

> Yes, in practice, POST is a bit of a black hole in that respect (but
> with any data, not just binary).

Mark, you and I had this discussion almost a half a year ago
on rest-discuss.  "POST is a bit of a black hole".  If indeed it's an 
elongated black hole, then that makes it a tunnel.  It would be hard
for an intermediary to determine whether any given POST
message was

   a. Appending a database
   b. annotating some document
   c. submitting data for "processing"
   d. adding to a bulletin board

That being the case, what is the meaning of your next statement
below?  The POST action could be darned near anything, so
what's left not to expect?

> FWIW, a RESTful use of POST is quite visible; an intermediary knows that
> there is no expectation of anything happening other than the POST action
> being taken (i.e. no tunneling going on).

Okay, so if the application is not tunneling beyond the tunnel
already provided by POST, then intermediaries know the application
is not doing a GET, and so they know not to cache the response.
Is there anything else?

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 17:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:08 UTC