Contents

Http MethodEdit

Http method

Http methods are the actions defined by the Hypertext Transfer Protocol that express the intended operation on a resource identified by a URL. They operate within a stateless request-response model, where each request carries all the information the server needs to process it. The most familiar methods—GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE, CONNECT—form a compact vocabulary that developers reuse across services, APIs, and web architectures. When used consistently, these methods enable predictable behavior, efficient caching, and clear security boundaries, which are valuable virtues in a marketplace that prizes reliability and accountability.

From a field-tested, performance-oriented perspective, a disciplined approach to http methods reduces maintenance costs and vendor lock-in. Interoperability across servers, proxies, and clients depends on well-understood semantics. A clear method mapping also helps nontechnical stakeholders understand who is allowed to change what, when, and where, which in turn supports responsible governance of online systems.

The landscape of architectural styles around http methods is diverse. Some teams adhere closely to the REST discipline—emphasizing resources, representations, and hypermedia—while others favor RPC-style patterns that use http as a transport with action-oriented endpoints. Both schools of thought aim to deliver scalable, secure, and maintainable services, but they differ in how strictly they interpret the semantics of each method. See REST and GraphQL for contrasting visions of how clients and servers should interact using http.

Core concepts

  • Statelessness: Each http request contains the data necessary to complete the operation, and the server does not rely on previous requests to determine the outcome. Authentication credentials are typically included with each request, rather than stored on the server side between calls. See HTTP for the protocol’s overall model.

  • Idempotence and safety: Some methods are idempotent, meaning repeated applications have the same effect as a single application. For example, PUT and DELETE are generally idempotent, as is GET (and HEAD). Others, like POST, may create resources or cause side effects on each invocation. The distinction matters for caching, retries, and user expectations.

  • Cacheability: GET responses (and sometimes HEAD responses) are designed to be cacheable, enabling intermediaries like CORS-enabled proxies and content delivery networks to avoid unnecessary work. Proper use of cache-control headers and ETags helps keep data fresh while reducing load.

  • Semantics and CRUD mapping: In a typical data-centric API, http methods are mapped to basic operations—GET for Read, POST for Create, PUT for Replace/Update, PATCH for Partial updates, and DELETE for Delete. This mapping supports uniform reasoning about services across an organization.

  • Headers and negotiation: Requests and responses carry headers that express content types (Content-Type), accepted formats (Accept), and concurrency or versioning information (ETag/If-None-Match). Strong header discipline supports interoperability among diverse clients and servers.

  • Security considerations: The use of http methods is inseparable from authentication and authorization. Transport Layer Security (TLS) protects data in transit, while access controls restrict what a given client may do with a resource. Security also involves choosing appropriate methods for sensitive operations and avoiding exposure of dangerous endpoints.

  • Intermediaries: Proxies, gateways, and content delivery networks rely on method semantics to optimize routing and caching. Some methods, like TRACE or CONNECT, are rarely used in public APIs due to security and operational concerns, and may be disabled by servers or proxies.

  • Practical constraints: In the web’s history, HTML forms supported only GET and POST, which led to techniques like method tunneling for servers that needed PUT or DELETE. This pragmatic workaround illustrates how real-world tooling shapes the evolution of http method use. See discussions around HTTP and Web forms for background.

Common methods

GET

Read-only fetch of a representation of a resource. It is designed to be safe and idempotent, making it suitable for caching and prefetching. Servers and intermediaries can replay GET requests without risking state changes, provided the resource itself remains unchanged.

POST

Create a new resource or trigger a non-idempotent operation. POST is not guaranteed to be idempotent: sending the same request multiple times may create multiple resources or produce different outcomes. This flexibility makes POST a common workhorse for submissions, searches, and actions that don’t fit neatly into a single resource replacement.

PUT

Replace a resource at a known URL with the supplied data. PUT is idempotent: repeating the operation yields the same result. It can also create a resource if the target URL does not yet exist, depending on server policy.

PATCH

Apply a partial update to a resource. PATCH is not inherently idempotent unless the patch itself is designed to be so; it offers a fine-grained way to modify a resource without sending the entire representation.

DELETE

Remove a resource. DELETE is idempotent in that deleting a resource multiple times has the same effect as deleting it once, though subsequent requests will typically reflect that the resource no longer exists.

HEAD

Like GET but with no response body. Used for obtaining metadata about a resource (such as size or last-modified) without transferring the resource representation itself.

OPTIONS

Ask a server what methods are available or allowed on a resource. This is useful for discoverability and for preflight checks in cross-origin requests managed via CORS.

TRACE

Echoes back the received request, primarily for debugging. In practice, TRACE is seldom used on public services due to security and exposure concerns.

CONNECT

Establishes a tunnel to a remote server, commonly used by proxies to route encrypted traffic. Its use is specialized and typically not part of standard application-level APIs.

Architectural patterns and pragmatic choices

  • REST versus RPC styles: REST emphasizes resources, standard methods, and hypermedia as a driver of state transitions; RPC-style approaches treat operations as verbs and may use non-standard endpoints. See REST and GraphQL for different philosophies about how http methods should drive behavior.

  • Hypermedia and HATEOAS: Some advocates argue that an API should guide clients through available actions via hypermedia links, reducing client-side coupling. Others contend that practical systems succeed with well-documented endpoints and explicit method usage without relying on dynamic navigation. See HATEOAS.

  • Overloading and tunneling: When HTML forms or clients are constrained to GET/POST, developers sometimes simulate PUT or DELETE through tunneling parameters or headers. While expedient, this can complicate semantics, testing, and tooling.

  • Non-REST patterns: Many modern services blend REST with alternative styles, using rpc-like endpoints, service-oriented interfaces, or GraphQL-based schemas that run over http. Each pattern has trade-offs in terms of performance, type-safety, and developer ergonomics. See GraphQL and gRPC for contrasts.

  • Caching and freshness: Intermediaries rely on clear, cache-friendly semantics. When state changes are frequent, the choice of method and proper use of cache headers impact user experience and bandwidth. See Web caching.

  • Security posture: The method set interacts with authorization decisions and auditing. For example, exposing a resource with a permissive set of mutating methods increases the surface area for misuse; conservative defaults and strict access controls tend to improve reliability.

Controversies and debates

  • Strict REST versus pragmatic API design: Some critics argue that a rigorously RESTful API with perfect adherence to resource semantics can hinder practical functionality, forcing developers to implement roundabout solutions. Proponents respond that disciplined method usage provides predictability, easier testing, and stronger interoperability, which are valuable in large-scale environments.

  • RPC over http versus REST: Critics of REST claim that REST can be overengineered for certain applications, especially when teams need rapid iteration or fine-grained callbacks. Advocates of RPC-like patterns emphasize speed, explicit actions, and simpler client-side code. The best choice often depends on organizational priorities and the nature of the data.

  • Woke criticisms and technical governance: Some discussions outside engineering circles critique architecture as reflecting broader cultural currents, alleging that certain standards encode values or preferences. From a results-focused standpoint, the counterargument is that open, well-specified methods reduce ambiguity, enable independent innovation, and improve security and reliability by removing guesswork about what a request does. Critics who argue that rigid standards stifle creativity may overstate their case; defenders note that clear, interoperable conventions protect users and developers from brittle, one-off integrations.

  • Overuse of GET for side effects: While GET is defined as safe, a minority of poorly designed services use GET for actions with side effects, undermining caching and user expectations. Strong practice dictates that state-changing operations reside in mutating methods (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) to preserve predictability and cacheability.

  • Security and exposure risk: Some critique the proliferation of endpoints and methods as creating more attack surfaces. A disciplined, security-first approach weighs authentication, authorization, input validation, and monitoring to ensure that extended method usage does not become an invitation to exploitation.

See also