Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-25862

Use of GET to subscription Denial?

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

    Details

    • Type: Change Request
    • Status: Resolved - No Change (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Highest
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Specification:
      FHIRCast (FHIR)
    • Raised in Version:
      0.1
    • Work Group:
      Imaging Integration
    • Related Page(s):
      (NA)
    • Related Section(s):
      Subscribing and Unsubscribing
    • Grouping:
    • Resolution Description:
      Hide

      Hey @Ricardo, 

      I don't disagree with you, the reason we're using GET/POST in this particular way is because we modeled after WebSub.

      I'd like to leave the current use of these HTTP methods as is. 

      We do have this statement in the overview:

      >is modeled on the W3C WebSub RFC, such as its use of GET vs POST interactions and a Hub for managing subscriptions. 

      And this related callout:

      >NOTE The spec uses GET vs POST to differentiate between the confirmation/denial of the subscription request and delivering the content. While this is not considered "best practice" from a web architecture perspective, it does make implementation of the callback URL simpler. Since the POST body of the content distribution request may be any arbitrary content type and only includes the actual content of the document, using the GET vs POST distinction to switch between handling these two modes makes implementations simpler.

      Any concerns?

      Isaac

      Show
      Hey @Ricardo,  I don't disagree with you, the reason we're using GET/POST in this particular way is because we modeled after WebSub. I'd like to leave the current use of these HTTP methods as is.  We do have this statement in the overview: >is modeled on the  W3C WebSub RFC , such as its use of GET vs POST interactions and a Hub for managing subscriptions.  And this related callout: >NOTE The spec uses GET vs POST to differentiate between the confirmation/denial of the subscription request and delivering the content. While this is not considered "best practice" from a web architecture perspective, it does make implementation of the callback URL simpler. Since the POST body of the content distribution request may be any arbitrary content type and only includes the actual content of the document, using the GET vs POST distinction to switch between handling these two modes makes implementations simpler. Any concerns? Isaac
    • Resolution Vote:
      Isaac Vetter / Eric Martin : 5-0-0

      Description

      In my opinion, it sounds "strange" to use GET to communicate Subscription Denial.

      GET give me the impression of retriving information, not posting it. Perhaps POST could be a better option. For discussion.

      Existing Wording:

      webhook Subscription Denial Example

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              Assignee:
              Unassigned Unassigned
              Reporter:
              rquintano Ricardo Quintano
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Vote Date: