Subject: RE: Status code for creating lock-null resource

From: "Tim Ellison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:24:33 +0100

"Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[snip] lots of stuff we agree on

> > Moving the server state of an 'unmapped-URL where the immediate
> > parent exists' from no resource to a resource should, IMHO,
> > respond with 201 Created.
>
> This makes sense to me. My concern is that it would still be nice for the
> first PUT after a lock-null is created to also return a 201.

I don't see why?  The resource has already been created and the PUT is
simply modifying the existing resource.  What is the basis of your concern?

Tim

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:12:07 -0700

> simply modifying the existing resource.  What is the basis of

One of the features you need for document management is the ability to set a
large number of properties when the body of a resource is first created. If
the 201 doesn't come back, then a client wouldn't know that this is the
first time the resource body state is being set.

Of course, this isn't the only way to address the issue -- a client could
allow properties to be set internal to the document format (like .doc and
.pdf files), and then the server could extract the metadata from the
document. But, this requires document-specific knowledge, and that implies
brittleness over time.

- Jim