W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:30:36 +0100 (MET)
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
cc: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0202011056080.3607-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Mark Baker wrote:

> Noah, this is one of those "web architecture" issues again.
>
> Encoding a SOAP envelope in a URI is using GET to tunnel that envelope,
> and isn't respecting GET semantics (which are "give me a representation
> of the resource identified by the Request-URI").

Well, having the envelope sent as a parameter is OK.
Another way to look at the GET method would be to have inbound one-way
messaging, but you need to have a way to identify that you will get
something without a body.

An example would be to do a POST to register a listener to a resource, you
want to listen to the weather in "foo" city

POST /register
<blah>

HTTP/1.1 303 OK
Location: http://www.example.com/weather/foocountry/foocity

And then you get "events" (ie, weather information) using GET method. Of
course it can be cached and ETag or Date revalidation can be used to
detect any new "event".
It is clear in this case that those GETs are idempotent methods.

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 07:30:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT