Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping)

On 17.02.2010 22:17, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 17.02.2010 16:30, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> ..
>>> It's possible that we could define a new method for @ping, call it
>>> PING. It would still be "unsafe", that is, not idempotent, by
>>> definition. I'm not sure what possible benefits this could bring over
>>> just using POST, though.
>>> ...
>> "safe" and "idempotent" are different things.
> Aren't all "safe" methods also "idempotent" by definition?


Except for the side effects that a safe method is allowed to have, such 
incrementing hit counters etc.:

"Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not 
generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in fact, 
some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important 
distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so 
therefore cannot be held accountable for them."

If you ignore those potential side effects as self-inflicted by the 
server (and not requested by the user), then yes, a safe method is also 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 21:33:17 UTC