- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:08:38 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
: > Here's a stateful interaction: : > : > C: How much is a ticket from NYC to Boston on the 20th? : > S: $50. : > C: How much is it round trip? : > : > The "stateless server" principle says that for the server to be able : > to answer the client's second question, it has to sacrifice some : > ability to service larger numbers of clients. : > : > However, if instead of the above, the client posts an incomplete : > order for a ticket, the server creates a resource : > from that, and the client can then complete the order via reference : > to that resource, you technically have a "stateless interaction", : : No, you wouldn't, because as you say, the second message would contain a : reference to the resource, but the semantics of that message - if it's : to provide the same expectation as the second message above - would be a : function of the state of that resource. Aha, I get it! So, in response to client's first query, the server might answer with the location of the pertinent schedule. Then, the client can interrogate that resource as it pleases, and we have a stateless interaction. Am I right? What we are really trying to avoid in this stateless business, then, is the Cartesian product of the sets RESOURCE x CLIENT, and making the server allocate resources for every member in that product. Am I getting warmer? : : Who said "State is hell"[1]? Easy as pie. 8-) : : [1] http://www.artima.com/intv/distrib4.html I don't know. It's an awful interview. Blech. :-D Walden
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:08:55 UTC