tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject RE: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs]
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:46:48 GMT
Sorry, but no. There is no ambiguity, unless you try really hard to
introduce one with thesaurus firmly in hand. Read the entire section
before you comment!

>From Section 9.6:

"The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected
in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST request
identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That
resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other
protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the
URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request --
the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt
to apply the request to some other resource."

Clearly, the URI in a POST does *not* represent the entity -- the entity
is subordinate to it.

Just as clearly, "the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed
with the request." Where is the ambiguity here? Whether that entity is
stored on the server in memory, in a individual file on disk, as a section
of a file, as a row in a database, or even as an individual cell in a
database table, is irrelevant as long as the *enclosed entity* is
represented uniquely by the Request-URI, the PUT is satisfied. There is a
one-to-one correspondence.

If "under" meant "subordinate," then subordinate to *what*? It's not
necessary to "suspect that [my] interpretation does correspond to the
author's intent" -- their intent is spelled out clearly.

(But then, their intent is irrelevant. The RFC is what it is. If it's
wrong, then you write a new one. You don't go around trying to guess what
the authors' "intent" was -- down that path lies madness. Phillip
Hallam-Baker *meant* referrer, but he wrote REFERER and it has been
REFERER ever since. You go with the standard as written.)

These sorts of discussions are not only pointless, they're potentially
harmful as they introduce controversy where none is necessary, wasting
time and fraying tempers. I repeat, the RFC is *quite clear* on the
difference between POST and PUT -- Roy Fielding, et al, did an excellent
job of it.

Can we, finally, let it rest there? (Pun intended.)


>> From: []
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs]
>> RFC 2616 is quite clear on this topic, IMO.
> Maybe not.
>> The POST method is used "to request that the origin server accept the
>> *entity* enclosed in the request as a new ***subordinate*** of the
>> resource identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line."
>> In contrast, the PUT method "requests that the enclosed *entity* be
>> stored *under the supplied Request-URI*."
> Unfortunately, one of the synonyms of "subordinate" is "under", so there's
> a degree of ambiguity here.  One could interpret the two clauses as being
> identical, depending on one's semantic education.  (I suspect your
> interpretation does correspond to the authors' intent, but it's certainly
> not 100% clear.)
>  - Chuck
> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail
> and its attachments from all computers.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message