- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 23:48:54 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALGR9oaDG3JLJsOMEkA+zad6r298xnSq5UE=aP=MfNPB9qpGmw@mail.gmail.com>
Ok so this is half-baked, and I didn't think about how to express bodies in the document, but I imagined a Hierarchical Document consisting of hx links. These are a series of steps the client wishes to perform against an API. This articulates a set of conditinal actions which are dependent on the previous step. So for instance, with HTTP/2 1) create object as if POST 2) let location be hx:///1/a/h/location?201 3) if location, modifying object at location as if POST 4) let hx:///3/s/ 5) if status 2xx 6) modifying object at location as if POST 7) let status be hx:///5/s 8) if status 2xx 9) POST pizza order A server that processes the document and completes all conditions will return 2xx, any failure will lead to 4xx or 5xx. A client submits the document and waits for the "final response". Now, having written that, I see that I am unclear how hx and http(s) scheme are supposed to be mixed with a single HTTP connection, or if that is indeed the intent at all. Lucas On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, 00:14 Martin Thomson, <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, at 10:59, Lucas Pardue wrote: > > The thought that occurred to me was was to embed the hx and hxr URIs in > > a document that is uploaded as an atomic chain to a server. > > > > Is that what you're discussing here? > > Say more? If you are talking about a single request, that might not be so > advantageous. This was really about managing dependency chains between > requests without paying round trips. > >
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2019 23:49:24 UTC