Re: ETags as first class objects
- --- In email@example.com, "Sebastien Lambla" <seb@...> wrote:
>they have a
> I've never seen ETags used with Uri values.
> What would be the semantics of inspecting the ETag? Just because
> Uri doesn't mean they can be dereferenced, and if they are, whatwould they
> return? A description of a specific version through http headers ina HEAD
> request or a content type describing lock and update semantics?I've never seen it either, hence my question. It seems if you have
ETags as URIs that could be dereferenced, then that means you're
keeping around old versions of your resources to return. Or I suppose
you could 303 old ETags URIs to the latest one, but that requires some
sort of ETag history.
> There's also mention of the possibility of the server doing a mergeon the
> fly from a put. Isn't this in conflict of the work being put intoI suppose, but remember, this document was written in 1999. Has there
> resurfacing PATCH?
been much progress on PATCH, BTW? I can't seem to find anything recent.
> -----Original Message-----[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> From: email@example.com
> Behalf Of griffinc18
> Sent: 23 August 2008 05:50
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [rest-discuss] ETags as first class objects
> Hi all,
> I was reading http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/, which discusses
> using ETags to combat the problem of the lost updates. It makes
> mention that the authors believe that a bug in the design of ETags is
> that they are not first class objects. In this case, first class
> objects means making them URIs.
> I was wondering if anyone else has heard of something like this or has
> seen it implemented anywhere? I've never encountered ETags when they
> were anything other than values in HTTP headers.
> Griffin Caprio
> Yahoo! Groups Links