RE: Status code for creating lock-null resource

"Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:

[snip] lots of stuff we agree on

> > Moving the server state of an 'unmapped-URL where the immediate
> > parent exists' from no resource to a resource should, IMHO,
> > respond with 201 Created.
>
> This makes sense to me. My concern is that it would still be nice for the
> first PUT after a lock-null is created to also return a 201.

I don't see why?  The resource has already been created and the PUT is
simply modifying the existing resource.  What is the basis of your concern?

Tim