- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:40:21 -0500
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Suresh. * Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> [2002-04-03 16:27-0600] > In response to the 410 like generic behavior has two aspects. > 1. create a response signal such as 410 > 2. create a protocol that will point to the "where it has gone" if > it is known to the responding entity. > > I think you are suggesting only (1) above. Which I consider a very useful > enabler for reliability (may even be thought of as a performance enhancer > from an implementation perspective). > OTOH (2)is useful, but likely debatable (may be a "judgment" issue). > Personally, I think even 2 could be a core reliability primitive for WS > access. HTTP gives you (1) and (2) for free, and even more: removed resources, temporarily and permanently moved resources, etc. I think that all are desirable, and I think that it is where the goal comes from. The question is how that will be supported by other protocols, e.g. if my service is identified by the <mailto:myservice@mydomain.example>. This is why I think that we should recommend such practices, when applicable (in HTTP's case, it definitely is). Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 17:40:21 UTC