

![]() | Start a set with this search |
![]() | Include this search in one of my sets |
![]() | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
![]() | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
83 messages in org.w3.www-tagRe: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Meth...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Dan Connolly | Apr 15, 2002 8:50 am | |
| Larry Masinter | Apr 15, 2002 1:44 pm | |
| David Orchard | Apr 15, 2002 3:01 pm | |
| David Orchard | Apr 15, 2002 3:19 pm | |
| Mark Baker | Apr 15, 2002 8:00 pm | |
| Keith Moore | Apr 15, 2002 8:37 pm | |
| Scott Cantor | Apr 15, 2002 9:28 pm | |
| Edwin Khodabakchian | Apr 15, 2002 9:34 pm | |
| David Orchard | Apr 15, 2002 10:18 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 15, 2002 11:17 pm | |
| Tim Bray | Apr 15, 2002 11:32 pm | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 16, 2002 1:01 am | |
| Tim Bray | Apr 16, 2002 1:02 am | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 16, 2002 1:09 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 16, 2002 2:11 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 16, 2002 3:02 am | |
| Mark Baker | Apr 16, 2002 4:54 am | |
| Williams, Stuart | Apr 16, 2002 8:22 am | |
| Keith Moore | Apr 16, 2002 8:32 am | |
| jon...@research.att.com | Apr 16, 2002 8:44 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Apr 16, 2002 8:55 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 16, 2002 9:40 am | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 16, 2002 9:42 am | |
| Hutchison, Nigel | Apr 16, 2002 9:43 am | |
| Henrik Frystyk Nielsen | Apr 16, 2002 10:48 am | |
| Bullard, Claude L (Len) | Apr 16, 2002 1:46 pm | |
| Larry Masinter | Apr 16, 2002 6:39 pm | |
| Roy T. Fielding | Apr 16, 2002 7:54 pm | |
| Larry Masinter | Apr 16, 2002 10:10 pm | |
| Graham Klyne | Apr 17, 2002 1:54 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 18, 2002 12:33 am | |
| Graham Klyne | Apr 18, 2002 9:11 am | |
| Alex Rousskov | Apr 18, 2002 9:30 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 18, 2002 9:45 am | |
| Graham Klyne | Apr 18, 2002 11:58 am | |
| Roy T. Fielding | Apr 18, 2002 3:11 pm | |
| Don Box | Apr 18, 2002 6:28 pm | |
| Mark Baker | Apr 18, 2002 8:50 pm | |
| Keith Moore | Apr 18, 2002 8:54 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 18, 2002 10:00 pm | |
| Graham Klyne | Apr 19, 2002 12:53 am | |
| Bill de hÓra | Apr 19, 2002 4:18 am | |
| Roy T. Fielding | Apr 19, 2002 1:20 pm | |
| Anne Thomas Manes | Apr 22, 2002 3:23 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 22, 2002 4:01 pm | |
| Anne Thomas Manes | Apr 22, 2002 8:17 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 22, 2002 10:21 pm | |
| Anne Thomas Manes | Apr 23, 2002 5:36 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 23, 2002 12:03 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 23, 2002 2:09 pm | |
| Roy T. Fielding | Apr 23, 2002 2:14 pm | |
| Bullard, Claude L (Len) | Apr 23, 2002 2:50 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 2:53 pm | |
| David Orchard | Apr 23, 2002 4:14 pm | |
| Keith Moore | Apr 23, 2002 5:05 pm | |
| Roy T. Fielding | Apr 23, 2002 5:14 pm | |
| Simon St.Laurent | Apr 23, 2002 5:18 pm | |
| Larry Masinter | Apr 23, 2002 6:31 pm | |
| Mark Baker | Apr 23, 2002 6:36 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 23, 2002 8:03 pm | |
| Tim Bray | Apr 23, 2002 8:30 pm | |
| Dan Connolly | Apr 23, 2002 9:05 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 9:10 pm | |
| Anne Thomas Manes | Apr 23, 2002 9:28 pm | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 23, 2002 9:42 pm | |
| Jeff Bone | Apr 23, 2002 9:42 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 10:02 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Apr 23, 2002 10:05 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 10:27 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 10:38 pm | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 23, 2002 10:57 pm | |
| Mark Nottingham | Apr 23, 2002 11:16 pm | |
| Joshua Allen | Apr 23, 2002 11:20 pm | |
| Dan Connolly | Apr 23, 2002 11:23 pm | |
| Tim Bray | Apr 23, 2002 11:56 pm | |
| Bullard, Claude L (Len) | Apr 24, 2002 7:23 am | |
| Larry Masinter | Apr 24, 2002 8:47 am | |
| Keith Moore | Apr 24, 2002 10:46 am | |
| Bullard, Claude L (Len) | Apr 24, 2002 10:56 am | |
| Aaron Swartz | Apr 24, 2002 11:27 am | |
| Mike Dierken | Apr 24, 2002 12:06 pm | |
| David Orchard | Apr 25, 2002 10:54 am | |
| Roy T. Fielding | May 5, 2002 3:38 am |

![]() | Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
![]() | Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Tim Bray (tbr...@textuality.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 16, 2002 1:02:02 am | |
| List: | org.w3.www-tag | |
David Orchard wrote:
1. I believe the wording on TAG issue whenToUseGet-7 is somewhat flawed. I could live with any of : a. safe methods (GET/HEAD) should be used for safe operations in browser-centric applications b. safe methods (GET/HEAD) *may* be used for safe operations or c. safe methods (GET/HEAD) should be used for safe operations in web applications that are information oriented.
I don't agree with (b). I don't believe that either "browser-centric" or "information oriented" are particularly useful partitioning criteria.
The Web Services practice that we're having trouble with is not new and was not introduced with the WS paradigm - I've done a ton of RPC-type stuff on both the server and client sides going back over the years using POST even when it was a pure info-retrieval operation, simply because the arguments were too big, ugly, and complex to fit into a URL.
Whenever I've done this I've paid at least two prices:
(a) many useful implementation tricks in the areas of caching, proxying, and so on, are ruled out because I didn't use GET (b) I can't bookmark the operation or put it in a web page without resorting to a form.
So Dan's draft, as stated, is correct. When you are doing an operation that you consider to be side-effect free, you SHOULD use GET. "SHOULD" means do it unless you have a good reason not to. "Too much input data" is in my opinion a perfectly good reason, in some scenarios.
The fact that SOAP is (a) verbose and (b) unconditionally decrees the use of POST is, given this, troubling. It means that *every* WS invocation is going to pay the two penalties I've discussed above - this will potentially have grave consequences for the scalability and robustness of Web Services deployments. For example, it seems to me that popular tools such as those provided by Akamai are going to have real trouble with Web Services traffic.
Clearly the W3C has neither de jure nor de facto authority over the legions of SOAP implementers out there. However, it is fact that in the Web architecture, there are situations where you SHOULD use GET, and the TAG ought to say so.
I agree with Dave that some larger group needs to take these issues up. Perhaps there is a way to bring SOAP into closer congruence with the Web architecture, with real performance benefits.
But in the meantime, I don't see how the TAG can responsibly fail to assert when, in the Web architecture, implementers SHOULD use the GET method. -Tim







