[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM
> To: Alaric Snell; Joshua Allen; Julian Reschke; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What does SOAP really add?
>
>
> Hi Alaric,
>
> Alaric said:
> > I always felt that XSLT was intended to be purely functional, a language
> > without side effects - I don't remember seeing a defined operational
> > semantics (saying what order actions are taken in), just denotational
> (saying
> > where information is taken from and what is done to it) :-)
> > Putting POST capability into XSLT would break this, since (depending on
> the
> > XSLT engine in use) a document-post(url) might cause zero, one, or any
> number
> > of actual POSTs unless that function alone had a partial operational
> > semantics defined... which would be a bit hairy
>
> Didier replies:
> Can you explain to me how an HTTP POST brings more side effects
> than an HTTP
> GET. Off course, when used in the context of the "document" function (or
Sure.
HTTP GET is supposed to be a side-effect free operation. HTTP POST isn't.
> anything else having the same intent: fetching an XML document). The basic
> goal of any construct like the "document" function is to fetch an XML
> document. Any other construct that would replace/expand it, would have the
> same intent. So, I am anxious to read your arguments of how an HTTP POST
> will bring more side effects than an HTTP GET (in the context of
> fetching an
> XML document and incorporating it into an infoset). This will expand my
> knowledge :-)
I think the TAG would argue that if you have a POST operation which is
side-effect free, you should have made it a GET in the first place.
|
