Re: PUT

Hi John,

I don't quite follow your logic; just because the resource and
representations of it are separate, doesn't mean that you can't
direct a representation to a server and instruct it to use that
representation in the future. This is why there's a distinction
between PUT and POST. 

Are you saying, then, that RFC2616 'breaks this critical element of
web success'?

Cheers,



On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:06:05AM -0800, John J. Barton wrote:
> At 01:31 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> >Micah,
> >
> >The REST [1][2] view of the Web architecture holds that there are a
> >number of basic operations one can perform on resources (as
> >identified by a URI);
> >
> >- GET it, to retreive a representation (e.g., an HTML page)
> >- POST to it, to submit data to it (e.g., processing)
> >- PUT it, to replace the state of the resource (so that future GETs
> >  retrieve the entity sent in the PUT)
> >- DELETE it, to remove it
> >
> >PUTing wasn't practical for traditional HTML forms, because the form
> >encoding wasn't useful to refetch; instead, encoded form data was
> >POSTed to a processor. However, it is potentially *very* useful to
> >PUT xml instance data, in cases where it is useful to retrive that
> >data later with a GET.
> 
> I have a somewhat different reading of Fielding's REST.  The R in
> REST emphasizes the critical difference between the representation
> of a resource obtained by GET and any underlying data.  Any
> standard that pairs GET and PUT breaks this critical element of
> web success. HTTP isn't a file system and that is a good thing.
> The sad reality that we don't have good wide-area file systems
> despite much work isn't a problem that forms should solve.
> 
> The appropriate pair for REST is GET/POST: even when the input
> data looks to the client like some stuff the server ought to
> store, that decision is the servers to make, always.
> 
> 
> >Cheers,
> >
> >
> >[1]
> >http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~cs650/assignments/papers/p407-fielding.pdf
> >[2] http://www.ebuilt.com/fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:10:30AM -0800, Micah Dubinko wrote:
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> The Working Group is examining this issue. I can't promise any particular
> >> outcome, but it would be helpful if you could provide some use cases for
> >> PUTting XML serialized instance data.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> .micah
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:48 AM
> >> To: www-forms@w3.org
> >> Subject: PUT
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is there any rationale for why XForms doesn't allow one to PUT an XML
> >> instance [1]?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice4.html#structure-model-submitInfo
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Nottingham
> >> http://www.mnot.net/
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Mark Nottingham
> >http://www.mnot.net/
> >
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
> MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
> 1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
> Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 13:56:53 UTC