Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'idempotence'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • RESTful idempotence

    - by DutrowLLC
    I'm designing a RESTful web service utilizing ROA(Resource oriented architecture). I'm trying to work out an efficient way to guarantee idempotence for PUT requests that create new resources in cases that the server designates the resource key. From my understanding, the traditional approach is to create a type of transaction resource such as /CREATE_PERSON. The the client-server interaction for creating a new person resource would be in two parts: Step 1: Get unique transaction id for creating the new PERSON resource::: **Client request:** GET /CREATE_PERSON **Server response:** 200 OK transaction-id:"as8yfasiob" Step 2: Create the new person resource in a request guaranteed to be unique by using the transaction id::: **Client request** PUT /CREATE_PERSON/{transaction_id} first_name="Big bubba" **Server response** 201 Created // (If the request is a duplicate, it would send this PersonKey="398u4nsdf" // same response without creating a new resource. It // would perhaps send an error response if the was used // on a transaction id non-duplicate request, but I have // control over the client, so I can guarantee that this // won't happen) The problem that I see with this approach is that it requires sending two requests to the server in order to do to single operation of creating a new PERSON resource. This creates a performance issues increasing the chance that the user will be waiting around for the client to complete their request. I've been trying to hash out ideas for eliminating the first step such as pre-sending transaction-id's with each request, but most of my ideas have other issues or involve sacrificing the statelessness of the application. Is there a way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Does php mvc framework agavi use CRUD compliant to REST?

    - by txwikinger
    The agavi framework uses the PUT request for create and POST for updating information. Usually in REST this is used the other way around (often referring to POST adding information while PUT replacing the whole data record). If I understand it correctly, the important issue is that PUT must be idempotent, while POST does not have this requirement. Therefore, I wounder how creating a new record can be idempotent (i.e. multiple request do not lead to multiple creations of a record) in particular when usually the ORM uses an id as a primary key and the id of a new record would not be known to the client (since it is autocreated in the database), hence cannot be part of the request. How does agavi maintain the requirement of idempotence in light of this for the PUT request. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • HTTP POST with URL query parameters -- good idea or not?

    - by Steven Huwig
    I'm designing an API to go over HTTP and I am wondering if using the HTTP POST command, but with URL query parameters only and no request body, is a good way to go. Considerations: "Good Web design" requires non-idempotent actions to be sent via POST. This is a non-idempotent action. It is easier to develop and debug this app when the request parameters are present in the URL. The API is not intended for widespread use. It seems like making a POST request with no body will take a bit more work, e.g. a Content-Length: 0 header must be explicitly added. It also seems to me that a POST with no body is a bit counter to most developer's and HTTP frameworks' expectations. Are there any more pitfalls or advantages to sending parameters on a POST request via the URL query rather than the request body? Edit: The reason this is under consideration is that the operations are not idempotent and have side effects other than retrieval. See the HTTP spec: In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. ... Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.

    Read the article

1