Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

diff + HTTP PATCH == wrong?

Expand Messages
  • Steve Klabnik
    ... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-20#section-2.3.5 ... and ... See above.
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      > PUT has replacement semantics, not fullness semantics.

      From httpbis:

      > A successful PUT of a given
      > representation would suggest that a subsequent GET on that same
      > target resource will result in an equivalent representation being
      > returned in a 200 (OK) response.

      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-20#section-2.3.5

      Now, the next sentence is interesting, too:

      > However, there is no guarantee that
      > such a state change will be observable, since the target resource
      > might be acted upon by other user agents in parallel, or might be
      > subject to dynamic processing by the origin server, before any
      > subsequent GET is received.

      and

      > still disagree with me?

      See above.
    • Philippe Rathé
      Hi Peter
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Peter

        On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Peter Williams <pezra@...> wrote: 

        PUT has replacement semantics, not fullness semantics. This is
        obviously the case because you don't have to provide each and every
        representation of a resource. Further, the server may modify the
        provided representation in any way it sees fit before actually
        performing the replacement.

         Awesome, that is illuminating. I agree.
      • mike amundsen
        fullness semantics , Gracie ? mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me ... fullness semantics , Gracie ? mca
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          "fullness semantics", Gracie<g>?


          mca
          http://amundsen.com/blog/
          http://twitter.com@mamund
          http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me




          On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Philippe Rathé <prathe@...> wrote:


          Hi Peter

          On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Peter Williams <pezra@...> wrote: 

          PUT has replacement semantics, not fullness semantics. This is
          obviously the case because you don't have to provide each and every
          representation of a resource. Further, the server may modify the
          provided representation in any way it sees fit before actually
          performing the replacement.

           Awesome, that is illuminating. I agree.



        • Peter Williams
          ... Since we are certainly talking about application/domain semantic -- not syntactic -- equivalence, i assert that only the origin server and/or the media
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@...> wrote:
            > > PUT has replacement semantics, not fullness semantics.
            >
            > From httpbis:
            >
            >> A successful PUT of a given
            >> representation would suggest that a subsequent GET on that same
            >> target resource will result in an equivalent representation being
            >> returned in a 200 (OK) response.

            Since we are certainly talking about application/domain semantic --
            not syntactic -- equivalence, i assert that only the origin server
            and/or the media type can define equivalence of representations.
            Therefore, *anything* the server wants to do is a-ok as long as it is
            a) not actively disallowed by the media type and b) is idempotent from
            the application perspective.

            Peter
            barelyenough.org
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.