Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rich Salz wrote: > As a long-time fan of federated naming (XFN), I'm sympathetic to this > approach. In some deployments, however, we've seen that it's not > appropriate: > - If you're already POSTing the query, why require clients to > know "n" URL's rather than one? Why "split up" the mesage? Why do the clients have to known "n" URLs? POST to a URL. Receive 302 See Other with a Location header. Perform a GET on the URL in the Location header to see the results. Many (all?) HTTP libraries do this sequence automatically. No training required. > - Concerns about exposing more than a single "generic" URI > to outside parties; more choke-points to manage, more things > to forward/change when deployments or architectures change > internally And corollary: more flexibility about changing deployment/architecture over a site in pieces rather than having to change a single controller URI or splice in additional functionality. L.
|
