- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 23:22:35 -0500
- To: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:08:38PM -0500, Walden Mathews wrote: > : > However, if instead of the above, the client posts an incomplete > : > order for a ticket, the server creates a resource > : > from that, and the client can then complete the order via reference > : > to that resource, you technically have a "stateless interaction", > : > : No, you wouldn't, because as you say, the second message would contain a > : reference to the resource, but the semantics of that message - if it's > : to provide the same expectation as the second message above - would be a > : function of the state of that resource. > > Aha, I get it! So, in response to client's first query, the server might > answer with the location of the pertinent schedule. Then, the client can > interrogate that resource as it pleases, and we have a stateless > interaction. Am I right? Right. > What we are really trying to avoid in this stateless business, then, is > the Cartesian product of the sets RESOURCE x CLIENT, and making > the server allocate resources for every member in that product. > > Am I getting warmer? Hot! 8-) Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:20:31 UTC