- From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:15:24 -0700
- To: "Helge Hess" <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Helge Hess wrote: > On 20.10.2008, at 20:39, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> I think this is better, according to what you quoted above: > >> S: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently > >> S: Location: /folder/bar > >> S: > >> S: Do it there > >> C: PUT /folder/bar > >> C: ... > > Of course that's not going to work in practice, as Cyrus pointed out. > > Thats exaggerated. Lets see where the requirement comes from. Its > originated in servers which use an RDBMS as the storage. Such servers > do not want to maintain an additional namespace for DAV but just want > to use the records primary key as the relative resource name. > > Example: PUT /new.txt => Location: 1.txt, PUT /new.txt => Location: > 2.txt, etc. Sure looks to me like PUT is not idempotent for that process. Robert Brewer fumanchu@aminus.org
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:15:04 UTC