Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:29:04 -0800 (PST) From: Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: rivers@dignus.com, mike@smith.net.au, capriotti0@hotmail.com, capriotti@geocities.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, joe.shevland@horizonti.com Subject: Re: WebAdmin Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980131020956.8348A-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> In-Reply-To: <199801310708.AAA01106@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Terry Lambert wrote: > I think that the atomicity of the transaction for HTML is an implementation > detal; a detail best served by defineing how a transaction is to take place. > > That the HTML post is a "transaction" is seperate from "what to do when > an HTML post is seen and you are an HTML server". Of course, implementation can treat it as a transaction or not. I only mean that HTTP protocol with forms uploaf provides a mechanism that allows HTTP server to use transactions regardless of the model used by client for its actions as long as the client uses HTTP. In other words, one can use any browser or proxy or another server program that replicates its configuration or custom-made client program, and the transactions model won't be broken if the server uses it. If the server doesn't care about transactions (plain CGIs with no locking), transactions support won't magically appear, but IMHO it's reasonable to keep the requirements to server higher than ones to the clients. -- Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.980131020956.8348A-100000>