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

Re: POST abuse?

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:01:34 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0108271530550.10336-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> > 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.

Note that, a POST reply can contain a Cache-Control header and then imply
a certain level of idempotence. The first POST will have a side-effect but
any subsequent POST with the same parameters won't. Of course you have the
possibility to cache the result as a bonus of this idempotence property.

> 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.

Usually jsp engines are single servlets, and the URI of the jsp is
passed as an argument to this servlet. You have then a 1-to-1 jsp-URI
mapping, same as what can be done for a SOAP engine to respect this.

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 10:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC