W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:25 -0700
Message-Id: <F978D3CA-9967-11D8-B566-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Justin Chapweske <justin@chapweske.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

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
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:30 GMT