- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:01:34 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > When you use POST to mean "MYFOOMETHOD" you sacrifice specificity > > to get reuse of infrastructure. When you use POST to mean GET you > > undermine existing infrastructure. And in my mind, caching is the > > least interesting thing you lose. Hyperlinking and URI-based > > addressing is way more important.... > > Agreed; I'd go as far as to say that no widely-deployed piece of Web > software can or will ever be able to cache a SOAP message based on > the current HTTP binding. I also agree that addressing is important - > the fact that people are encouraged by SOAP to place multiple logical > services on single URI is the primary reason why my stab at a SOAP > caching module [1] is more complex than it needs to be. Note that, a POST reply can contain a Cache-Control header and then imply a certain level of idempotence. The first POST will have a side-effect but any subsequent POST with the same parameters won't. Of course you have the possibility to cache the result as a bonus of this idempotence property. > However, I don't know that going to pure-GET is necessary to fix > this; merely requiring a 1-to-1 service-to-URI mapping would do the > trick. Usually jsp engines are single servlets, and the URI of the jsp is passed as an argument to this servlet. You have then a 1-to-1 jsp-URI mapping, same as what can be done for a SOAP engine to respect this. -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 10:01:39 UTC