- From: Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:58:08 +0200
- To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le 20 juil. 2012 à 16:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker a écrit : > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > The REST argument seems to be a red herring to me. If people want to > write stateless servers then fine, they can use a different technique. > There have been statefull servers on the Web since 1993. That is why > the POST method is written the way it is. The design goal was to > separate out the idempotent methods from the rest. > > You can't do an application like Web Mail without loca state because a > mailspool IS state. But REST allows having state on the server (resource state, so no need for session identifiers) and also allows having session state, provided it isn't stored on the server. You can do all sorts of supercool webmail systems with that. So REST != fully stateless, and it could be useful to ponder the idea that designing without session state stored on the server is good for system such as the Web. P.M.
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 15:58:41 UTC