Re: PATCH thoughts...

Or a COPY followed by a PATCH.  Good point.  I agree.

Who should I acknowledge for the original definition of PATCH?

Lisa

On Apr 28, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> Would it solve all these use cases if we provided a "Source: <url>"  
>> header?  The job of the server is then to take the Source resource,  
>> apply the patch body, and save it at the destination (the request  
>> URI).  I'd probably define this so that if the Source header were  
>> missing, then the Request URI is both the source and the destination.
>>
>> Would anybody else find this useful?
>
> No, I would find it actively harmful.  The same can be accomplished
> by a MOVE followed by a PATCH without introducing unnecessary
> complexity and without requiring servers that have no interest in
> that feature to embed client code just to support it.
>
> Please note that PATCH was originally defined in section 8.6 of
>
> http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/history/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec 
> -01.txt
>
> ....Roy
>