Re: Why GET is an application semantic

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:12:45PM -0700, Joseph Hui wrote:
> > Yes, but the implications for each choice on the ability to deploy at
> > Internet scale are tremendously different in each case.  So much so,
> > that one is deployable on the Internet, and one isn't, in my opinion
> > and observation.
> 
> I'd done it (developed and deployed, though not with stock quote apps)
> the way I described, and it worked well every time. 
> I think Yahoo did it in similar ways with their stockquote websites.

Ah, ok, I think I'm clearer on what you mean now.

So Yahoo may or may not do this with their stock quotes, I don't know.
But that's the point - I *don't* need to know, I just use GET.

So going back to your suggestion to change the URI to use "put"
instead of "get" when I wanted to invoke PUT instead of GET, that *is*
something that you are asking me, as a client, to know.  The REST
contract says that if I have a URI for a resource, and I want to set
it's state, I can use PUT *on that URI*.  But your system doesn't allow
that.  Instead, it requires that I know how to change the "get" to a
"put" - something that I won't know to do without a priori information
about your service.

Is that any clearer?

> I think we've beaten the horse to dead, and a dead horse ain't
> gonna go far no matter how hard we continue beating it.
> So I'll settle for the "design choices, or trade-off" and leave
> it at that.

Maybe he's not quite dead yet, Jim .. er, Joe. 8-)

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 23:40:41 UTC