Michael Bernstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 21:12 -0800, James M Snell wrote:
>> In such cases, the server should respond with a 202 Accepted rather than
>> a 204 Created and the response should not contain a Location header.
>
> Perhaps I didn't explain well.
>
> I meant that the Entry *exists* within the POSTed-to collection, just
> not yet visible to the POSTing user within that feed, and incidentally
> shows up within a second 'virtual' collection that allows GET but not
> POST (so it allows a differently privileged user to see it and PUT it
> back to approve it and make it globally visible at the POSTed-to
> collection).
>
I would still expect a 202 Accepted in this case. The fact that the
entry may actually have been created is hidden to POSTing user. All
they need to know is that the request has been received and is being
processed. If the POSTed entry happens to show up in some other feed,
so be it.
> Perhaps that was too contrived.
>
>> If the server responds indicating 204 Created, the entry should appear
>> within the feed.
>
> It was my understanding that generally speaking, the contents of a feed
> (like introspection docs) can vary with various factors including user
> authentication, in which case a conformant implementation still might
> not immediately show a successfully POSTed entry to the same user that
> created it, at least not until some other condition was met (such as a
> second user's approval).
>
You know what, you're right, I'm wrong. Consider POST only feeds. I
may have the authority to POST and entry to the feed, but not be able to
turn around and read it. That doesn't change the 202 Accepted
discussion above, however.
- James
