Re: 'onetime' Service Document for reliable POST

["Thomas Broyer" <t.broyer@xxxxxxxxx>]

2007/8/24, Teo Hui Ming:
> On 8/24/07, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> >
> > With POE, you don't need to have a distinct URI for the "Service
> > Document with POE support".
> > A POE-aware client will send a "POE: 1" header with each of its GET
> > requests. If it then send a GET request to a Service Document which
> > supports POE, the server will return the Service Document with
> > collections' href changed to POE resources' URIs, and lists them in
> > the POE-Links response-header (note that the server should also return
> > a "Vary: POE" response header).
> > If the server isn't given a POE header as part of the request, it just
> > sends the Service Documents with the "direct" collection URIs (i.e.
> > those where you can POST more than once, as defined per the AtomPub
> > spec).
> >
>
> But doing so, clients will need to reload the entire service document
> everytime after each post.

s/after/before/

But how is this that different from your
application/x-onetime-atomsvc+xml proposal?
http://www.teohuiming.name/blog/onetime-service

> More important, I feel that it may change the expected meaning of
> application/atomsvc+xml defined in the spec.

It won't, because the use of POE is explicit: the client explicitly
tells the server it would accept a Service Document with links to POE
resources (the client sends a POE request-header); and the server
explicitly tells the client whether the Service Document has links to
POE resources (the server sends a POE-Links response-header).

-- 
Thomas Broyer