Re: 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )

> I'm becoming more and more convenced that single-exchange PUT is
> unworkable. That is, PUT might have to happen in two steps:
> 1. client: wanna PUT this file of this size of this media type 
>   	   in this location with these PERMS with
> 	   this validator 
> 2. server: OK, send file (or permission denied)
> 3. client: OK, here's the file.
> 4. server: OK, got the file

One of the possible solutions we (Henrik and I) discussed this summer was
a two-request form of PUT (using PUTQ as the probe method).  That solution
was discarded because the server's requirements/status may change between
the two requests and thus the second request must still be protected using
the two-phased approach (or something similar).  Therefore, there was no
immediate advantage to using two requests other than for obtaining the
access requirements -- the OPTIONS method does that.

> Step 1 might offer more than one media type with step 2 accepting a
> particular one or a subset. Step 1 might say that it doesn't know the
> file size, for example.

If we allow such negotiation, we must also provide a mechanism for
expressing it.  None is available currently and it's a bit of a rats
nest to come up with one that can encompass the server's options.
On the whole, I think we are better-off having the client ask
"can I do this" for each combination of request until the server
says "go ahead and do that".

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056

Received on Tuesday, 26 December 1995 23:22:01 UTC