Re: "Bulk load" get/set

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:54:38AM -0400, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> "Mark Baker" <> writes:
> > 
> > Erm, did I misread the minutes?  It seems to me that the WG *already*
> > decided that get/set operations would be used.  That doesn't prescribe
> > a binding, of course, but neither does my proposal; that the operations
> > I proposed are "GET" and "PUT" doesn't prevent a binding to FTP RETR
> > and STOR, for example.
> I don't think I grok what you want the WG to do: Do you want us to
> *force* all users to name the attribute get operations "GET" etc.?

I think so, but no more so than the current plan proposes to "force" all
users to name the operations getX and setX.  I'm just saying that we
should do the getting and setting in bulk.  We can call the operations
"get" and "set", if you prefer.

> Of course one can bind any operation to an HTTP GET if that's what
> they wish (when we finish the HTTP bindings properly).

Well, I'd recommend only binding operations which are
safe queries/lookups/etc.., since that's what GET is for.

> I suspect
> you want more than that ;-).

Am I that predictable? 8-)

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:20:10 UTC