W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:24:07 -0800
Message-Id: <9ee689aeebb609c273b25296ff535c51@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> I still don't see how POST vs. ADDMEMBER is any different than POST
> vs. PUT.  You previously said that PUT has "set the state of this
> resource" semantics which is clearly different than POST.  IMO,
> ADDMEMBER's semantics are very similar to PUT.  What (constraint?) am
> I missing that suggests PUT is fine while ADDMEMBER isn't?

You are missing that the target of PUT is the new resource,
whereas the target of POST and ADDMEMBER are both the collection
resource.  As such, ADDMEMBER's semantics has very little in
common with PUT (almost nothing, in fact, since any unsafe
extension method can return 201 and communicate just as much,
whereas PUT is unique in what it communicates by the 200/201).

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 08:30:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:26 UTC