Re: Question regarding POST versus PUT for creating an LDPC

On 18 Apr 2013, at 23:51, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> All the spec currently says on this is: 
> 
> 4.4.6 LDPR servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT. 
> 
> Which I read as trying to discourage this practice although it's not quite that clear. What you're describing only makes me want to add something like the following to reinforce that thought! :-) 
> 
> LDPR clients SHOULD NOT try to create new resources using HTTP PUT. 


+1

> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> 
> To:        Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc:        "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org> 
> Date:        04/18/2013 02:25 PM 
> Subject:        Re: Question regarding POST versus PUT for creating an LDPC 
> 
> 
> 
> hello arnaud.
> 
> On 2013-04-18 14:01 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >So, you're saying that somehow the server needs to advertise what URLs
> >the client can use to create resources using PUT, right?
> 
> yes. supporting unconstrained PUT (PUT into the universe of all possible
> URIs) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. supporting PUT into some
> constrained URI space may make sense, but that space needs to be defined
> somehow, at least in a way that a client has a reasonable chance to come
> up with a URI that will actually work.
> 
> >We've already agreed to adding support for slugs on POST to a container.
> >How can we use them to let the server tell the client what URLs it can
> >PUT to? Wouldn't that be another use case for URL templates?
> 
> there are different ways in which you could do it. i think the first
> question is what you want to do, and then the next question is how to map
> this to RESTful interactions using HTTP as much as possible.
> 
> if you want to allow pretty unconstrained PUTs, you could publish a prefix
> and tell clients to go ahead and PUT to any URI with that prefix. that
> would of course create the kind of weird names that POST/Slug are trying
> to avoid by delegating the actual URI choice to the server.
> 
> if you want to allow PUT to somehow achieve POE semantics, maybe
> http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2011/11/creating-resources-with-get-put.ht
> ml is what you want, but that is some pretty elaborate interaction dance.
> 
> from the current spec i cannot really tell what PUT is supposed to do
> (where you're supposed to PUT, and what that means), but once that is
> clarified, we can look at possible interactions that achieve that goal.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/