On 2009-11-13 20:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring
>> atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not
>> idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the
>> PATCH,
>> but the client then fails to receive an indication of success due to
>> an extraneous network glitch (and TCP reset?), then what prevents the
>> client
>> issuing the same PATCH again? In other words, absent a two-phase commit,
>> there appears to be no transactional integrity.
>
> How is this different from PUT or POST? If you need repeatability of the
> request, just make the request conditional using "if-match"...
PATCH seems more dangerous than those simply because it is partial
update of a resource, and I don't feel it's sufficient to say that
there might be a way of detecting that it has failed to complete,
if you're executing a series of patches that build on one another.
Talking about transactional integrity in the IETF has always been
hard, for some reason. But something described as "patch" is exactly
where you need it, IMHO.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf