RE: Changing representations

On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 13:05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > > If I've understood correctly, you have described two competing service
> > > models for a given URI: (a) one PUT affects all GET media types; versus
> > > (b) one PUT per GET media type.  Both seem perfectly valid and seem to
> > > me to fill different use cases.  
> > A use case for (b) is when it is expensive for the server to generate
> > the different media types, and the server is willing to trust the client
> > to maintain semantic consistency between the media types.  Certainly
> > this is a very rare use case, but nonetheless valid.  
> But this case is much better served by the server maintaining separate
> URIs for each rendering and redirecting the 'main' (un-PUT-able)
> resource.
> Attempting to maintain separate, expensive-to-produce media types
> through the same URI seems like a disaster, which doesn't match any
> implementation anyway.

I certainly agree, but I think the original question was more about
whether model (a) is *required* rather than whether it is *advisable*
(though I may be mistaken):

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 11:39 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: 
> [ . . . ] The
> interpretation I saw by this guy on a list, trying to follow the spec
> properly, was like there were different buckets hanging of the
> resource, you push some json, the json bucket changes. Does that
> influence the other buckets?

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 20:35:04 UTC