Re: Feedback on ISSUE 27 (PUT idempotency)

On 1/4/07, Henrik Nordstrom <> wrote:
> ons 2007-01-03 klockan 11:05 -0800 skrev Paul Leach:
> > The definition of idempotent is a little too strict.
> >
> > A better definition would say that if there are two identical PUTs to a
> > URI and then a GET to the _same_ URI, it should behave the same as just
> > one PUT and then a GET to that URI. It is overly restrictive to talk
> > about GETs to _other_ URIs (such as the ones that contain version
> > numbers).
> Agreed.

I dunno, I think it would be better to avoid mention - let alone
definition - of idempotence, and remove 9.1.2, as the word already has
a definition outside the context of RFC 2616.  What's important is the
meaning of PUT, and though I suppose what's there now implies
idempotence via the use of "store", it's not a great definition
(because "store" is too specific and can be interpreted to describe
implementation behaviour rather than message semantics).  IMO, it need
say little more than "The PUT method requests that the resource
identified by the Request-URI have its state set to that represented
by the enclosed entity".

Perhaps that's too large a change for the scope of this work though.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies

Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 13:27:53 UTC