- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:07 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2012/2/29 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>: > It also desirable that idempotent methods are used for idempotent > actions, Actually, a server has to be prepared for the consequences if it treats idempotent requests in a non-idempotent fashion. Clients (and intermediaries) should not bear the responsibility for bad code... > but using requests defined as non-idempotent for idempotent > actions do not cause any breakage, only slight loss of efficiency. Depends on the axis you use for measuring efficiency. I somewhat like the resiliency afforded by idempotent operations and prefer to use POST and PATCH in a way that they are effectively idempotent, within the context of the application. So retrying doesn't result in waste of other types (orphaned state, etc).
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 00:35:35 UTC