- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:26:01 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, ietf-carddav@osafoundation.org
Am 16.07.2007 um 23:13 schrieb Julian Reschke: > Cyrus Daboo wrote: >> Whilst that tells you if you have a conflict, you still end up >> having to take a guess at another resource name to use to actually >> save the new data. Hopefully, the second guess will work. >> The one benefit I have heard to the POST/ADDMEMBER approach is if >> the server has limitations on resource names. Typically those are >> servers that proxy their data to/from another, more rigid, system. > > Yep. And that's why I think ADDMEMBER would be useful. POST just is > too generic. I think a client would need context for both methods. If you think of adding ADDMEMBER to a generic client like "curl", it's not much more it could do besides what it already does for POST. If you talk about a "higher level" client (e.g. more aware of the context it works on), the method name again does not make a big difference. If AtomPub would have used ADDMEMBER instead of POST, what improvement exactly would one expect from that? Cheers, Stefan
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 07:26:45 UTC