[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
> As a long-time fan of federated naming (XFN), I'm sympathetic to this
> approach. In some deployments, however, we've seen that it's not
> appropriate:
> - If you're already POSTing the query, why require clients to
> know "n" URL's rather than one? Why "split up" the mesage?
Why do the clients have to known "n" URLs?
POST to a URL.
Receive 302 See Other with a Location header.
Perform a GET on the URL in the Location header to see the results.
Many (all?) HTTP libraries do this sequence automatically. No training
required.
> - Concerns about exposing more than a single "generic" URI
> to outside parties; more choke-points to manage, more things
> to forward/change when deployments or architectures change
> internally
And corollary: more flexibility about changing deployment/architecture
over a site in pieces rather than having to change a single controller
URI or splice in additional functionality.
L.
|
