Opened 7 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

#364 closed design (fixed)

Capturing more information in the method registry

Reported by: mnot@… Owned by: julian.reschke@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 21
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:

Description

We established the method registry in #72, and considered recording idempotency there. However, we closed that issue without a definitive answer, because we were still discussing the definition of idempotency.

Should we add idempotency to the method registry? Anything else?

Change History (15)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by algermissen@…

Roy came up with this table a while ago:

                                     visible   identifiable
    method     safe    idempotent   semantics    resource     cacheable
             -----------------------------------------------------------
     GET     |  X          X            X           X             X    |
     HEAD    |  X          X            X           X             X    |
     PUT     |             X            X           X                  |
     POST(a) |                          /                              |
     POST(p) |                                                         |
     OPTIONS |  X          X            X                         O    |
             -----------------------------------------------------------

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/4732?var=0&l=1

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

Proposal is to add idempotency (not others).

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 20

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Owner changed from draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@… to julian.reschke@…

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1728]:

add idempotency to the registration fields for new methods (see #364)

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1729]:

add idempotency to the registration fields (see #364)

comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Milestone changed from 20 to unassigned

I just realized that, in the initial method registrations document, we haven't decided on idempotency for some methods. Either we need to fix that, or leave a loophole in the registration process for not specifying it under circumstances like these.

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution incorporated deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

Does #377 capture everything -- i.e., can this be closed?

comment:11 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

If we resolve #377 by finding out what the idempotency of these is: yes. If not, we need to tune the registration procedure for entries like undefined/unspecified.

comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by fielding@…

Why don't we also list cacheable?

comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by fielding@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 21
  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Never mind, the table is good enough as is.

comment:14 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution incorporated deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:15 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.