RE: Associated resource for PUT

On 11.07.2012 05:12, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10 16:55, Robert Brewer wrote:
>> > Section 5.1 of draft-19 part 2 says, "An HTTP request
> representation,
>> > 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
> before
>> > 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.
>

The same would appear to be true for POST entity relative URLs as well.
Is there some problem I'm overlooking?

AYJ

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 23:16:00 UTC