Hi Patrick!
I had a lapse of concentration here. I typed PUT when I intended POST.
Regards
Jeff
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 20:26 +0800, Patrick Dowler wrote:
> IMO we have not discussed GET vs POST vs PUT, but I agree with Jeff that
> putting the query string (URLEncoded) in a GET url will likely be
> problematic. Specifically, there is a limit to the length of a URL and you
> may not be able to tell in practice (on the server side) that you passed it
> and suffered truncation. Sure the client might check the length, but then
> what?
>
> It seems to me that http POST is the next likely candidate (depending on the
> flavour of REST religion we may or may not adopt :) I like the idea of POST
> because it still allows for something simple like a page in a browser to
> submit a TAP query and doesn't limit what a more capable client might do.
>
>
> my 2c,
>
> Pat
>
> On Friday 18 May 2007 15:19, Doug Tody wrote:
> > To clarify, what I meant in my closing plenary comment was that
> > I think what we agreed was to eliminate the use of parameters for
> > query restriction (hence no POS,SIZE,BAND, no range-list constraints,
> > etc.) but not the use of the basic HTTP GET parameter mechanism
> > where we might have other general non-query constraint params such
> > as REQUEST, VERSION, FORMAT, QUERY=<adql-string>, or whatever, which
> > do not duplicate functionality found in the ADQL but which are needed
> > to compose a GET/POST operation. - Doug
>
-- Jeff Lusted tel: +44 (0)116 252 5358 Astrogrid Project mob: +44 (0)7973 492290 Dept Physics & Astronomy email: jl99-at-star.le.ac.uk University of Leicester web: http://www.astrogrid.orgReceived on 2007-05-18Z15:47:27