[uf-rest] REST opacity and URL schemes.
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
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
More information about the microformats-rest