- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:03:11 +0200
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Am 16.09.2008 um 15:19 schrieb Jamie Lokier: > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> So my concern is that we use two different types of ETags on the same >> resource. > > I agree, this is a good point. > > Why use the Etag header for resumable POSTs? If Etags are used (and > why not - it's handy not to have to carve out special URL space), I > still don't see any advantage to using the ETag _header_ for it in > resumed POSTs, as opposed to inventing a Resume-POST header. Not that it is important, but *I* do not understand why there is a discussion about a new protocol feature when URI space management is able to solve the problem most elegantly. URI usage seems even easier for clients, so the burden is on the server implementation where there are not so many. The use case I heard about is adding resumable upload to a cloud at the very edge by some sort of server proxy. Such a proxy is not master of the served namespace and cannot simply invent new URIs. So such proxy would need additionally a namespace of their own, but that does not sound like a show stopper. It would allow for load balancing, as was already mentioned here. If someone would be so kind as to help me overcome my ignorance in this matter? Thanks. //Stefan -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 14:04:11 UTC