Is APPEND really needed ?

julian.reschke@gmx.de wrote:
> >> 7) BTW Is APPEND really needed? Surely a PATCH can do the same thing
> > (except that PATCH cannot create a new resource)?
> > 
> > It is true that PATCH can do the job of APPEND as well. But the APPEND
> > method is much simpler and can be applied to any resource without being
> > concerned about the resource type and the Patch-Type. Assuming that a
> > client need to do mostly appends, this method comes in handy without the
> > 'baggage' associated with the PATCH method. Also it is more efficient to
> > implement at the server and may have a quicker response time. 
> I don't see how it's easier to specify or more efficient to execute than 
> the format I proposed in my other mail.
After reading the discussion for a couple of days now I'm still not at ease
with APPEND.
A new HTTP method which sometimes behaves like a PUT and sometimes like a PATCH
would be a muddy design IMHO. If like Julian proposes this convenience is also
possible with a content type, why not ?
Taking a purists stance I could even drop that :-) A good diff will accomodate 
appending.
I will have to implement one method less in my server and also the RFC will
be shorter without APPEND. There will only be a lot of stuff just duplicated.
This said I'm very happy to see that a standard for sending diffs is discussed
again. Because it really doesn't make sense to send a complete big document
to a DeltaV server if you only correct a single letter typo :-)

Cheers, Edgar

Received on Sunday, 6 August 2006 22:33:51 UTC