RE: Associated resource for PUT

Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 16:55, Robert Brewer wrote:
> > Section 5.1 of draft-19 part 2 says, "An HTTP request
> > when present, is always associated with an anonymous (i.e.,
> > unidentified) resource." [1]  That makes perfect sense for POST, but
> for
> > PUT it makes sense IMO to declare that the representation is
> associated
> > with the target resource. Or is the intent that the representation
> "is
> > *to become* associated", and is therefore considered anonymous
> > the request had been handled?
> Yes, that's (IMHO) the intent. The decision is up to the server (after
> all, it could reject the request).
> > This is important for at least one reason: I believe this section in
> the
> > HTTP spec could be useful to establish a base URI for request
> entities
> > according to section 5.1 of the URI spec [2] (which itself might be
> > underspecified in this regard; it doesn't say much about operations
> > other than retrieval).
> Do you need that functionality until the time the PUT has succeeded?

The server needs to establish a base URI for any relative URI's in the
request entity. If the entity itself does not include a 'base' attribute
(and many media types do not allow for one at all), it seems natural for
PUT to default to the Request-URI, rather than leave it up to the
application to specify (and then document) for each URI.

Robert Brewer

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 17:12:39 UTC