On 9/18/06, Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
Yes, I'm starting to see that (although it seems to me that you have your POSTs and PUTs backward: shouldn't you use a POST to create the transfer transaction, and a PUT to send the tx details?).
Ah, yes, this is a major bone of contention that I have with the "powers that be". The semantics of POST and PUT are confused/confusing. In you're example, the POST is actually an "update" of the existing resource (to create the possibility of the sub-resource) and the PUT is the "create" of the nascent resource. [Sorry, just ignore my rantings on this.] [...]
As I've mentioned in my response to Jerome, I think this solution has the merit of helping make all requests idempotent. My problem was that I would most likely want to extend this mechanism to resources creation as well; i.e. instead of POSTing a account resource, I would POST a tx resource and PUT the account details in this tx.
Yes, idempotency is a Good Thing(tm). :-) Take care, John
