Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Miles Sabin wrote: > >... > > Not quite. Suppose the response endpoint is disconnected when the > responder attempts to call back. Yes, the responder can retry later, > or maybe consult some registry or other for an alternative target > URI. How does any of this violate or otherwise work against HTTP principles? > But look what we're doing here: we're layering another protocol on top > of HTTP, a protocol which doesn't match HTTPs semantics very well. Doesn't match how? What are HTTP's semantics? I'm starting to understand them (years after I first worked with HTTP) and the more I do, the more general they seem. Is retry really even a protocol issue or just a software issue? Does SMTP have a better solution? > ... I'm > not saying it _can't_ be done with HTTP, just that there are better > ways of going about it. Better how? Concretely. Paul Prescod
|
