POST and PUT (was RE: a bunch of my mail :)

On Tue, 19 Jul 1994, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> ...
> I agree that the ARGS and PARAMS do look strange, but I think we should
> make sure not to lose any platforms currently supported before we
> remove them. Though, replacements _are_ welcome! Please look at the
> page to see a list of platforms supported
> 	http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Library/User/Platform.html

Yes!  A fine decision.
Couldn't help but notice there isn't a DOS supported.
When I get a hold of your libwww 3.0 I'll be adding this; BTW, when can I 
	lay my paws on it?
I'll be wanting to coordinate any changes that I make with the CERN group.

> ...
> Generally - the HTML side of the library hasn't been touched for a long
> time.  We hope that this is going to change as Hakon Lie, has started
> to look into it. That is also the reason for the lacking support of
> post.
> About posting, I see two different sides of it:
> 	- The interface between the library and the clients
> 	- The HTTP implementation of PUT and POST
> I have been working on a general posting interface that can be used not
> only for HTTP, but also NNTP and SMTP (NNTP posting is almost
> integrated but no SMTP support currently in the Library). As forms are
> a special case of posting, it also goes for this. Please see the
> specifications on
>    http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Library/User/Features/ClientPost.html
> <other URLs...>

Let's discuss this POST and PUT information, just for clarity if nothing
else.  When doing either in HTTP, you'll be able to specify multiple
destinations for the data.  If post transactions require a URI returned,
how is this handled by the libwww when multiples come back? Or am I off
base here?  Note, I understand that the URI is no guarantee of any action
taken by the server.  Does the put return a URI also, or just
acknowledgement of a change to the URI sent by the client? 

The nntp post is handled all in one transaction, so only one message ID 
is given back from an nntp post; even if multiple newsgroups were 
targeted because nntp can handle this all in one request.  Good.

The sentto URI is a decent idea, but why not depend upon SMTP to return 
to the user a message that never reached it's destination?  Also, 
shouldn't this be similar to the nntp idea, since you can specify 
multiple recipients of the message BODY while doing the transaction with 
SMTP.  If so, how does the sentto URI cover multiple SMTP targets?

I think the FTP POST is a needed feature in your design.  I know that it 
is going to be very open so that it can be added in the future.  I just 
wanted to give my vote now.

> I have been working on an actual implementation of the posting
> interface but as I now have less than 2.5 weeks to finish my master
> thesis I have to do this instead :-(. My plan is to write my thesis on
> the Web so what you are reading is actually a draft of it!

Good luck, Henrick!

Dzai Jyan,

Trodden Soil

I am trodden soil.
Dust covers my face.
Soles crush my nature
Revealing a hard empty space.

Garrett Arch Blythe  (913)864-0436
User Services Student Programmer/Consultant
University of Kansas Computer Center