Re: [alto] Info Resource Dirs, OPTIONS, 300 Multiple Choices and all that jazz ....

Replying to this thread, but not all in the same email...

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Bill Roome <w.roome@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
...
> And for those who think the original specification is necessary -- the
> OPTIONS and 300 response and all that -- now that we've had a bake-off,
> how many servers actually implemented those options?

The server that I didn't get a chance to demo did not support either,
but due to the way I chose to lay out the resources, it didn't need
to.  Each entry provided one and only one entry, and the
implementation serving the directory knew the full URI to each
individual resource.  Since each URI supported only one resource,
OPTIONS wasn't required by the current text (Martin suggests it should
be, but I'll respond to that one elsewhere in this thread).
Similarly, a resource doesn't need 300 Multiple Choices in this case.

Admittedly, this is the simple scenario for clients.  So the rest of
this thread regarding flexibility is the one that reflects my actual
belief :)

> How many clients
> supported them?

My client discovered the appropriate URI to request by recursing
directories via OPTIONS requests (aside from the root directory being
requested via GET).  Supporting 300 Multiple Choices responses wasn't
done in time, but is simple to add and there's a marker in the code to
do it.

Rich

>        - Bill Roome
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>