Asynchronous DAP Responses: Difference between revisions
(New page: This succinct suggestion for adding support to asynchronous responses came from Roberto De Almeida (roberto at dealmeida.net): My suggestion would be to return a 202 Accepted (http://www....) |
No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Development|Development]][[Category:DAP4|DAP4]] | |||
This succinct suggestion for adding support to asynchronous responses came from Roberto De Almeida (roberto at dealmeida.net): | This succinct suggestion for adding support to asynchronous responses came from Roberto De Almeida (roberto at dealmeida.net): | ||
<blockquote> | |||
My suggestion would be to return a 202 Accepted (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.3) response with a "Location:" header pointing to a unique URL. Accessing the new URL should return either a 404 Not found if the response is not ready; 200 OK if it is; and 410 Gone if it has been generated and deleted after some time. | My suggestion would be to return a 202 Accepted (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.3) response with a "Location:" header pointing to a unique URL. Accessing the new URL should return either a 404 Not found if the response is not ready; 200 OK if it is; and 410 Gone if it has been generated and deleted after some time. | ||
</blockquote> | |||
'''Comment''': [[User:Jimg|jimg]] 18:47, 22 January 2009 (PST) This effectively factors the issue out of DAP and says that how asynchrony will be handled is dependent on the transport protocol. I think that's essentially correct. For example, SOAP has an asynchronous mode and DAP over SOAP should use that, not some DAP-specific hack | '''Comment''': [[User:Jimg|jimg]] 18:47, 22 January 2009 (PST) This effectively factors the issue out of DAP and says that how asynchrony will be handled is dependent on the transport protocol. I think that's essentially correct. For example, SOAP has an asynchronous mode and DAP over SOAP should use that, not some DAP-specific hack. |
Latest revision as of 17:19, 15 February 2011
This succinct suggestion for adding support to asynchronous responses came from Roberto De Almeida (roberto at dealmeida.net):
My suggestion would be to return a 202 Accepted (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.3) response with a "Location:" header pointing to a unique URL. Accessing the new URL should return either a 404 Not found if the response is not ready; 200 OK if it is; and 410 Gone if it has been generated and deleted after some time.
Comment: jimg 18:47, 22 January 2009 (PST) This effectively factors the issue out of DAP and says that how asynchrony will be handled is dependent on the transport protocol. I think that's essentially correct. For example, SOAP has an asynchronous mode and DAP over SOAP should use that, not some DAP-specific hack.