W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

Re: POST abuse?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:10:09 -0700
To: Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010825161005.H2405@mnot.net>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:52:54PM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
> I see this as a very different issue. One discussion about adding
> functionality that is missing in the Web and another is about
> whether to reuse the functionality available on the Web or ignore
> it and rebuild it.

Good summary.


> When you use POST to mean "MYFOOMETHOD" you sacrifice specificity
> to get reuse of infrastructure. When you use POST to mean GET you
> undermine existing infrastructure. And in my mind, caching is the
> least interesting thing you lose. Hyperlinking and URI-based
> addressing is way more important....

Agreed; I'd go as far as to say that no widely-deployed piece of Web
software can or will ever be able to cache a SOAP message based on
the current HTTP binding. I also agree that addressing is important -
the fact that people are encouraged by SOAP to place multiple logical
services on single URI is the primary reason why my stab at a SOAP
caching module [1] is more complex than it needs to be.

However, I don't know that going to pure-GET is necessary to fix
this; merely requiring a 1-to-1 service-to-URI mapping would do the
trick.

Of course, I haven't fully partaken of the REST Kool-Aid yet...


Cheers,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2001Aug/att-0000/01-ResponseCache.html
    http://makeashorterlink.com/index.php?E4FE22B0

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 19:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT