Re: Common HTTP Model

PS: Maybe, it would be even more consequent to talk about "Standards"
and not "Recommendations".


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Christian Grün
<christian.gruen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As the HTTP Model is simply a description of how HTTP requests and
> responses can be represented via XML, there may be no need to make it
> optional.
>
> I agree with Adam that there may not always be a requirement for
> functions accessing this model, so it would be just consequent to
> treat them as optional extension. In RESTXQ, for example, the HTTP
> Model is used to build server responses, and those results will
> usually never be requested from within a function. Instead, it is the
> RESTXQ implementation that parses this XQuery response result and
> creates the real HTTP response.
>
> Personally, I can life with both solutions: Define two specs or keep
> them together. In terms of naming things, it might be more consequent
> to split them. Right now, on top of [1] it says "HTTP Model. EXPath
> Candidate Module 11 January 2014". But I believe that a model is
> nothing like a "module". A better naming could be:
>
> * HTTP Model. EXPath Candidate ..
> * HTTP Module. EXPath Candidate Module
>
> In a broader scope, we could even think about rephrasing the subtitles
> of each "EXPath Module" to "EXPath Recommendation". Aftre all, in my
> points of view, features like the packaging system are much more than
> plain modules.
>
> What do you think?
> Christian
>
> [1] http://expath.org/spec/http/editor
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Adam Retter <adam@exist-db.org> wrote:
>> Florent,
>>
>> I still think I have a problem with this spec defining two things,
>> i.e. a model and functions. I would rather see two specs, in this way
>> I or anyone else can choose to implement either or both of the model
>> and functions. It makes no sense to me to conflate the concept of
>> modelling with a function library. If you must you could split it into
>> two parts where both are optional, however I think two separate spec
>> documents is preferable even if they had to share the same namespace.
>>
>> Also... just wondering why the URL is suffixed '/editor', is there
>> some sort of significance to that?
>>
>> On 26 February 2015 at 19:34, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
>>>   Just a quick email to point out there is already an editor draft at
>>> http://expath.org/spec/http/editor.  I still have pending changes I
>>> need to commit, I'll have a look as soon as I can.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Florent Georges
>>> http://fgeorges.org/
>>> http://h2oconsulting.be/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 February 2015 at 13:30, Christian Grün wrote:
>>>>> Before the HTTP Client Module hits 1.0, it would be very nice if we
>>>>> could define a common XML HTTP Model for HTTP Requests/Responses
>>>>> (excluding bodies initially) which could live outside of the
>>>>> http://expath.org/ns/http-client namespace.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I believe that an own spec for defining the HTTP model would make
>>>> sense. We have the HTTP Client Module and RESTXQ today, and we may
>>>> have other extensions in future that could be based on this model.
>>>> Maybe it even simplifies the finalization of the HTTP Client Module,
>>>> as it its contents will be more focused on the actual task.
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me,
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Retter
>>
>> eXist Developer
>> { United Kingdom }
>> adam@exist-db.org
>> irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb

Received on Saturday, 28 February 2015 12:07:59 UTC