[Catalyst] Re: REST - like uri design for CRUD

Zbigniew Lukasiak zzbbyy at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 09:57:42 GMT 2008


On Jan 22, 2008 8:25 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 1:30 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis at gmx.de> wrote:
> > * Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> [2008-01-21 07:40]:
> > > While we are at that - I do understand the need to divide the
> > > operations into the 'indempotent' and 'non-indempotent' classes
> > > (because of caching and predictive link loading) - but what is
> > > really the practical argument for having two more classes (PUT
> > > and DELETE)?
> >
> > I don't understand this question. It sounds like you have some
> > confusion about several distinct things and that you don't
> > actually understand what idempotence is. Can you try to explain
> > a bit more what you are trying to ask? Are you just asking why
> > there are more verbs than GET and POST? Are you asking about why
> > it's important to categorise verbs as non-/safe in addition to
> > non-/idempotent? Is it something all together different?
>
> The first one.  Why you need to split the class of non-idempotent
> operations into three more categories (POST, PUT and DELETE).

Just after sending it I have realized that DELETE can be also viewed
as idempotent since a second call to it does not really change the
state (even if it can return an error to the caller).
And that shows another question - perhaps all we need is the simple
division into safe and non-safe operations?

--
Z.



More information about the Catalyst mailing list