On fre, 2008-01-04 at 22:14 +0100, Werner Baumann wrote: > I wonder what the intended use of this Etag, sent in response to a > PUT-request, would be. As the entity, sent in a subsequent GET is not > guaranteed to be equal to the body of the PUT-request, not a single > client knows the entity. But clients get an entity-tag - for an unknown > entity. What are they supposed to use it for? Thr client knows the entity is a direct derivate of the entity in the PUT. The version of the server resource entity created by the PUT. It maybe isn't octet equal with the request entity, but for as long as the strong etag is the same it's the exact version (in octets) created by the PUT request. This ignoring any server-side implementation races when dealing with multiple concurrent PUT requests for the same resource, those are just server implementation bugs. This use of ETag is entirely fine for PUT, but I wonder what to do in case of PATCH... but I guess that octet based PATCH requests should only be allowed to servers using an octet based store.. it simply gets too hairy otherwise, Regards HenrikReceived on Saturday, 5 January 2008 21:25:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:14:00 GMT