- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:55:06 -0500
- To: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Folks, Mark Baker suggests [1] that we should add a SHOULD requirement that queryHttpPost binding should be used "where the cost of processing the query may be prohibitive". I don't really agree with this, since there's no way to no statically which are the expensive and which are the cheap queries. Even very sophisticated query analysis can't tell you which RDF datasets are expensive to assemble. And, further, I don't know of any way to programmatically redirect expensive GETs to POSTs (you can send a Location: header to the POST endpoint, if it's different from the GET endpoint, but I don't think that *really* suffices; alternately, we could define a WSDL fault, UsePost, but that seems an awful kludge), and I don't really see the *point* of doing so either, since if the query is too expensive, it's too expensive, whether it comes in via GET or POST. Mark retorts [2] that the "safety" of GET includes expensive operations, citing some message from Roy Fielding, but I think the message undercuts Mark's use of it, since it's very clearly about implementations of services, not about the semantics of their interfaces. Pat +1'd the proposal, but that was before further discussion, so I'm not certain where he would be now. I'm opposed to the inclusion that Baker suggests, for the reasons I've stated, but I will leave it to the WG to decide. Cheers, Kendall Clark [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/ 2006Jan/0094.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/ 2006Jan/0111.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:55:14 UTC