W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Resumable Uploads

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:29:12 +1200
Message-ID: <517340E8.2030301@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 20/04/2013 5:02 p.m., Nico Williams wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2013 5:13 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com 
> <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 19 April 2013 13:56, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se 
> <mailto:daniel@haxx.se>> wrote:
> > > I'd just add that a resumed upload does not necessarily imply a 
> previous
> > > upload failure. It could also be that you're appending parts over 
> time as
> > > they "come in" or similar.
> >
> > I'd have thought that this is a perfect fit for PATCH.  Nothing new 
> needed.
>
> Sure, but how do you indicate that a transfer is complete?
>

I would think that any API using PATCH, started with a PUT to create the 
resource, used a series of PATCH to updated it and is treating the 
intermediary stages between initial PUT and followup PATCH's as:

a) time periods when GET on the resource can pull the current state in 
its entirety (no need for a completion signal, as every PATCH makes a 
new "complete" / up-to-date copy)

b) using a final POST to perform resource manipulation through some 
control script - ie copy the final solution to a proper Location, and 
run any post-processing checks.

c) using LOCK/UNLOC requests on theh resource URL explicitly to signaly 
the in-use state across teh period when the resource is being PATCH'd.

And yes, all of these assume working API no problems with a particular 
request/response message. The interesting cases for resume are the ones 
when corruption, loss, or disconnection happen while the server is 
receiving a request.

Amos
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2013 01:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC