• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Generality of HTTP
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:19:48 -0800
• References: <E16St0l-0000sb-00@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> I don't believe there's any problem with using POST for idempotent
> queries, only in using GET for non-idempotent ones. 

Well in general, it disables caching, even when caching makes sense. It
makes firewalling harder because the security admin has less information
about what is being done. A reasonable policy for a machine that is only
supposed to serve information might be to allow GETs but restrict POSTs. 

> ... As for success
> and failure, that's a matter of level.  When my application returns
> a "search failed" message to the client, the HTTP code is 200.

SOAP is not an application. Actually, it seems like the most recent SOAP
spec does as I prefer and does map SOAP errors to HTTP errors. So that
complaint is no longer accurate.

 Paul Prescod

• References:
  • Re: Generality of HTTP
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread