Capturing more information in the method registry

[mnot@…]

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?

[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

[mnot@…]

Proposal is to add idempotency (not others).

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1728]:

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

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1729]:

add idempotency to the registration fields (see #364)

[julian.reschke@…]

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.

[mnot@…]

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

[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.

[fielding@…]

Why don't we also list cacheable?

[fielding@…]

Never mind, the table is good enough as is.