- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:04:49 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I've been doing other stuff, so haven't been able to process everything as fully as I want. However, I've got some comments and I'll mouth off even thought I'm in arrears for the revised requirements document. I think that Yaron has a point about the equivalence of POST w/ content types, and separate methods, but only when you consider the mechanisms in isolation from the way things already are. We had about 8-9 messages on the caching implications of the new update operations, including several proposals for ways to revise HTTP to handle this kind of cache-invalidation. I think many of you will agree that this is a more-general HTTP issue, and should be solved in that context. Given that assumption, separate methods are a better solution, since they don't provide any new constaints on the HTTP group: They already have seaprate methods with update semantics. Adding a few more methods to the list will not complicate things in principle, while if we overload POST we may be creating POST operations that need special processing that the POST already in place might not be able to deal with. It also seems to me that the separate method approach is closer to the original simple OO model behind the WEB, with operations defined on resources. It also seems to me that having content-types for our new operations like MERGE will make supporting multiple data formats for input to these operations easier. -- David _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Friday, 1 November 1996 12:59:47 UTC