Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • Very helpful, thanks! ‘The semantics of a PUT or DELETE request don't depend on whether the server happens to choose to act on the request at once or accept it for processing later.’ I think you nailed it. This means that the creation of the process resource, even when it is unique per request like in the second pattern (e.g. /process/123), is actually a side effect, not an intended effect like I thought. So yes, both patterns allow idempotent asynchronous requests. Commented Jun 25, 2021 at 11:05
  • ‘Notice that "ought to" is of the requirements levels described by RFC 2119.’ You are right, I included the request’s status monitor but forgot to include the request’s current status in the bodies of my 202 responses. Haven’t you forgot it too by the way (‘Maybe I'll do that at midnight.’ looks like an embedded status monitor without a current status)? Commented Jun 25, 2021 at 11:10
  • No, that means that I forgot a very important "not" in the text of my answer. If the standards authors meant SHOULD (in the 2119 sense) then they SHOULD have used that spelling, not "ought to". Commented Jun 25, 2021 at 11:42