Http MethodsEdit

Http methods are the verbs of the web’s request-response model, telling a server what to do with a particular resource. Defined as part of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, these methods are a foundational design decision for building scalable, interoperable web services. The most familiar ones—GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH, HEAD, OPTIONS—operate in a way that affects performance, security, and developer ergonomics. The semantics of these verbs—what it means to fetch, create, modify, or remove a resource—shape how APIs are designed, how caches behave, and how systems can evolve without breaking existing clients. For a broad overview, see Hypertext Transfer Protocol and the formal guidance in RFC 7231.

From a pragmatic, market-minded perspective, the chosen set of methods should maximize reliability and simplicity while supporting growth and competition. Standardized methods with clear, well-understood semantics reduce integration costs for businesses, enable effective caching and security policies, and allow diverse platforms to interoperate without bespoke adapters. In practice, the vast majority of public and private APIs rely on a core set of methods that map cleanly to CRUD-style operations on resources, with Caching strategies tuned to the method’s safety and idempotence.

Core concepts

Safe methods: Some methods are designated as safe, meaning they are intended only for information retrieval and should not cause side effects on the server. The most prominent example is GET, but HEAD and OPTIONS are also generally treated as safe, depending on the implementation. See the discussion of safety in the context of HTTP semantics and RFC 7231.
Idempotence: A method is idempotent if executing it multiple times has the same effect as executing it once. GET, HEAD, PUT, DELETE, and OPTIONS are typically idempotent, while POST is not guaranteed to be. This distinction informs caching, retries, and error handling.
Cacheability: The ability to cache responses depends on the method and on response headers. GET responses are cacheable in many cases when the response is marked appropriate for caching, which helps reduce server load and improve latency. See Caching for more.
Uniform interface: The HTTP method semantics support a uniform way to express operations on resources, while the resource’s representation is negotiated via headers and responses. For architectural patterns around this idea, see REST (computing).

Common HTTP methods

GET

GET is the primary read operation. It requests a representation of a resource and is designed to be safe and, in many cases, cacheable. Because it should not change server state, GET requests are generally preferred for fetch operations, enabling intermediaries like proxies and browsers to cache responses to reduce server load. See GET (HTTP method) for typical usage and caveats.

POST

POST is used to submit data to a resource, often resulting in a new resource or a change to server state. It is not idempotent by default, meaning repeating the same request can create duplicates or trigger additional effects. In practice, POST supports create operations, complex queries, and actions that don’t map cleanly to a single resource URL. See POST (HTTP method) for common patterns and considerations.

PUT

PUT is used to create or replace a resource at a known URL. It is typically idempotent: applying the same PUT request multiple times should yield the same state as applying it once. This makes PUT useful for updates that are deterministic and can be repeated safely. See PUT (HTTP method) for typical semantics.

DELETE

DELETE requests remove a resource at a known URL. It is idempotent in effect, since deleting a resource multiple times yields the same end state (the resource is gone). However, practical deployments must handle cascading effects and authorization carefully. See DELETE (HTTP method) for details.

PATCH

PATCH applies partial modifications to a resource. Unlike PUT, PATCH is not guaranteed to be idempotent and can have varied results depending on the patch document. It is a flexible mechanism for small updates without replacing the entire resource. See PATCH (HTTP method) for typical usage patterns.

HEAD

HEAD mirrors GET but asks for only the headers, not the body. This is useful for obtaining metadata such as content type or last-modified timestamps without transferring a full representation. See HEAD (HTTP method) for more.

OPTIONS

OPTIONS asks the server what methods and options are available for a resource, often used for discovery and for preflight checks in cross-origin scenarios. It is a standard way to negotiate capabilities between client and server. See OPTIONS (HTTP method).

TRACE

TRACE echoes the received request to help with diagnostic debugging. It is rarely needed in production and can have security and privacy implications; many deployments restrict or disable TRACE. See TRACE (HTTP method) for background.

CONNECT

CONNECT establishes a tunnel to the destination, commonly used for secure communication via SSL/TLS through a proxy. It is specialized and not part of typical application layer usage; see CONNECT (HTTP method) for context.

Design patterns and practices

RESTful design and statelessness: A common approach is to treat HTTP as a transport for resources, with verbs mapped to resource-oriented operations. This aligns with Statelessness and the broader principle of a uniform interface, enabling scalable, decoupled systems. See REST (computing) for the broader architectural context.
Content negotiation and semantics: Clients and servers negotiate representations (e.g., media types) and behavior through headers, enabling a clean separation between the protocol and the data model. See Content negotiation and HTTP.
CORS and cross-origin requests: When a web app on one origin requests resources from another origin, preflight using OPTIONS helps enforce safe cross-origin interaction, balancing openness with security. See CORS.
Security and safety: Designing APIs that respect safe methods for reads and conservative use of state-changing methods reduces risk. It also aligns with best practices for authentication, authorization, and transport security (e.g., TLS). See Security (computing) and CSRF discussions in practice.

Controversies and debates

REST versus alternatives: Proponents of REST-style design favor predictable semantics and widespread tooling tied to HTTP methods, while critics point to inflexibility and the emergence of alternative patterns (e.g., GraphQL or RPC-style APIs). From a broad, market-oriented view, the argument often centers on interoperability, tooling maturity, and maintenance costs. See REST (computing) and GraphQL.
Using POST for non-CRUD operations: Some APIs route many actions through POST to avoid proliferating endpoints or to carry complex bodies. Critics argue this hides operation semantics and undermines the reader-friendly mapping of HTTP verbs. The pragmatic stance is to reserve GET for reads, and use POST for operations that cannot be expressed safely with other methods, while maintaining clear documentation and predictable side effects. See POST (HTTP method) and GET (HTTP method).
Overengineering vs simplicity: A typical debate is whether API design should embrace richer semantics or keep things as lean as possible. Advocates for lean, widely understood methods emphasize reliability, caching, and cross-vendor compatibility; opponents of such simplicity may push for more expressive systems (e.g., complex PATCH documents, or higher-level RPC frameworks). The balance often comes down to the use case, required performance, and the expected ecosystem of clients and servers. See Caching and Idempotence.
Privacy, regulation, and innovation: Critics of privacy-preserving measures sometimes claim that safeguards hinder innovation or economic growth. From a practical, competitive-market perspective, privacy protections and security defaults can build trust, reduce friction, and open broader adoption of online services. While not a blanket endorsement of every policy, the core argument is that security and privacy are enablers of long-term value, not drag on innovation. See Privacy and Security (computing).