Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

Am 15.09.2008 um 15:41 schrieb Brian McBarron:

> >On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo- 
>> wrote:
> >[...]
> >Sorry, I *really* don't buy that. You're pushing more complexity  
> and ambiguity (see previous post) onto the clients, which >history  
> shows are more numerous, harder to implement and easier to stuff  
> up. On the server side the difference between using >URIs and using  
> ETags is more a matter of style than implementation complexity.
> Rather than waving hands about history, let's keep the conversation  
> a bit more pragmatic.  If we can find agreement that one of the  
> models is sufficient, I'd be happy to narrow the specification.

I agree with Mark that optional features/alternate behaviours make  
clients more complex and results usually in poor interoperability.  
But, boy, do I dislike ETags. They are like visits to the dentist,  
necessary but no pleasure.

How would a client cancel an upload scenario which just uses ETags?  
(With temp URIs the obvious solution seems to be a DELETE on that  
uri. I sure would feel uncomfortable with a DELETE/if-match: Etag on  
the original POST target...)


<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 14:31:32 UTC