[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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
|
