W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:22:36 -0700
Message-ID: <46E188DC.6050003@gmail.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


Yaron Goland wrote:
> [snip]
> #1 - I don't believe that 209 with race condition protection is actually necessary. Although I could easily be convinced that I'm wrong if someone has a killer use case.
> 

It's not necessary in every case, which is why the spec does not make it
a MUST.  It should be possible to provide race condition protection
without requiring it.

> #2 - We absolutely need the ability to return a 209 without race condition guarantees. So if 209 is going to be defined with a race condition prevention requirement then we can't use 209 and will need to do something else.
>

Well, I'm wondering if there is some way we can signal in the 209
response whether or not some other change has occurred.  I know warning
codes are not the Cool Thing, but something along those lines would be
helpful to indicate that the resource has been modified before the 209
response was returned.

Do you have a suggestion for what that signal could be? response header?
warning code? something else?

- James
Received on Friday, 7 September 2007 17:22:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT