[uf-rest] REST opacity and URL schemes.

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Sun Apr 23 08:55:45 PDT 2006

My rule of thumb for PUT is that afterwards, if I GET a  
representation from the same resource, it should give me back what I  
sent in the first place (unless it's been separately changed in the  
meantime). You also have to account for transcoding.


On 2006/04/22, at 9:51 PM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:

>> * If "/books/4" represents the "record", the PUT would need to  
>> contain _everything_ about that record; synthesizing additional  
>> fields (like last modified) seems like 'cheating', and  
>> inconsistent with PUT semantics
> Could you tell me what other resources than http://www.w3.org/ 
> Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html expand on this interpretation  
> of PUT? My naive reading of 9.6 PUT seems to be that it talks all  
> about updating and modifying. Not necessarily only complete  
> replacements. But I'm new here, so perhaps I just have an  
> incomplete picture.
> I will say that PUT would seem a ton more useful if it didn't have  
> as strict a usage pattern as you imply. If that's the case, PUT  
> seems to be unusable for most web application purposes. And if  
> that's the case, I really question whether its worth doing other- 
> verbs-over-post mapping at all in Rails. Doesn't seem worth the  
> trouble just to get DELETE.
> --
> David Heinemeier Hansson
> http://www.37signals.com    -- Basecamp, Backpack, Writeboard, Tada
> http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework
> http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-rest mailing list
> microformats-rest at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

More information about the microformats-rest mailing list