- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:02:56 -0500
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/30/05, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Having a PUT response include an e-tag associated with the current > entity is necessary in order to avoid the lost update problem (see [1]). > I don't think this is a redefinition of the use of e-tags: section > 10.2.2 states that > > "A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating the > current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just created, > see section 14.19." Good find Henrik. I still think that's suboptimal from the point of view of providing a *generic* validator which is independent of response semantics. If we were addressing the lost update problem today, I'd be suggesting minting a new response header which could carry that ETag. > The use of the term "requested variant" is consistent with the use in > section 14.19 and elsewhere in the spec. It refers to the resource > identified by the request URI regardless of the method used. I'm with Julian on that being non-obvious. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 13:20:21 UTC