W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Partial Puts

From: Gregory J. Woodhouse <gjw@wnetc.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:50:25 -0800 (PST)
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
cc: "'masinter@parc.xerox.com'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970321082848.6717A-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
I agree with Yaron that this is important functionality (though maybe not
essential), and I believe it will only become more important.

I don't see any way to consolidate insert and overwrite without overloading
the byte range simply because we have no notation for byte range of length

I understand Larry's concern about the resource/entity distinction, but I
fail to see why the fundamental issue is any different with partial PUTs
(as opposed to ordinary PUTs).

Partial PUTs are *much* more sensitive than ordinary PUTs to the current
state of the resource. If the client has out of date information the end
result will likely be garbled data. Therefore, I suggest a partial PUT
include an optional (but strongly recommended) tag (in If-Match) and
return failure if the tag is out of date. The client can then do a GET and
try again with an updated partial PUT request. This may be preferable to a
lock  so long as the assumption that PUTs are relatively rare holds.

I'm not sure if a new method is needed, we could just add appropriate
request headers.

Because of the potentially disastrous consequences of interpreting a
partial PUT as an ordinary one, PEP negotiation of this functionality
should be mandatory.

gjw@wnetc.com    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.
Received on Friday, 21 March 1997 11:53:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:10 UTC