W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Idempotent partial updates

From: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:10:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CANqiZJZV5iG6tb7Pj7vSRNQvKKjeuS9o-bt5DDAWG7T8R7-0kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote:
> Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I agree with Mike that PATCH (or a special POST) aren't visibly
>> idempotent, which is a crucial characteristic if this is going to
>> work.
> If 99.9% of partial updates are non-idempotent, wouldn't the need for
> idempotent partial update be an edge case, as opposed to crucial?
> What we're trying to make visible on the wire is *sender intent* not
> idempotency.  The sender doesn't intend to make idempotent vs. non-
> idempotent requests.  Idempotency is a property of the request method,
> not a sender intent in and of itself.

No. What we should be trying to make visible "on the wire" are
properties of a request that are useful/valuable for intermediate

The idempotency of a request is valuable for intermediate processing,
because infrastructure can be developed to re-issue a client request
on network failure.

Having a request guaranteed to be non-partial is not useful or
valuable for intermediate processing, apparently there are no examples
of intermediary mechanisms which leverage this.

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 10:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC