- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:26:36 +0000
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- CC: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > 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. Very true. It's not just the query that determines whether it will be expensive - it's the dataset as well (and the sever load). [I confess I don't see why POST is better than GET for expensive operations except that timeouts are not at the mercy of caches as well.] > 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. SHOULD language (meaning "carefully weigh the situation before choosing a different course") is acceptable if that reflects good web practice; not having the text on the grounds that you believe that there isn't anything sufficiently SPARQL related is also acceptable. > > 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 > Andy
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:26:47 UTC