W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:45:38 +0200
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1189032338.4388.3.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
On ons, 2007-09-05 at 14:09 -0700, Yaron Goland wrote:
> What's the use case for wanting to resolve this race condition? If
> someone issues a change to a resource and someone else issues a
> subsequent change to alter the resource's state again then who cares
> what the interim state was since it is now gone?

From what I understand it's the motivation for the 209 response code in
PATCH, allowing the client to request the patched resource so that it
can verify that the patch was applied like expected.

If the client can not trust that the 209 response to PATCH is infact the
resource after applying the patch then there is not much point in
supporting 209 for PATCH, and it can just as well be specified that the
client should GET the resource if it needs to verify..


Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 22:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:31 UTC