- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- cc: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>, Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> Sorry - I know I'm not really contributing yet, but rather - just asking >> more questions. But I think, perhaps, that once I get my code up to a point >> where it's starting to have good coverage, it may start to reveal some real >> questions and issues that could add value. So, bear with me (and be gentle). > > If the client knows or has control over the name of the resource to be > created, it should PUT the contents to the new location. There are > several problems with this caveat: > > 1 PUTting a resource names that aren't cryptographically unique means > it's likely that some client has already created that resource, > e.g. all clients try all the time to create container/item1. If-None-Match: * is your friend here, but yes, deriving useful names is an issue that a factory handle better. > 2 The server implementation might constrain the names of the resources > it can store and serve, e.g. one backed by a database which stores > only an integer which it concatonates unto "container/item". > > For these reasons, LDP also supports the common web convention of > POSTing to a factory to create new resources. In LDP's case, that > factory is called a container and there is a prescribed protocol and > media language for talking to it. > > Hope I answered the right question. > > >> -- >> Cody Burleson > > -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 07:41:17 UTC