Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation

Indeed, RFC 5789 should make it unambiguous for HTTP PATCH. For other
uses of JSON Patch, it would be implementation-specific. This is why the
"fails to complete" verbiage is there...

Paul

On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 09:12 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> On 02/12/2011, at 8:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > On 2011-12-01 22:51, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> I thought that at first too, but upon reflection I don't see how they're different from other directives -- other ones can fail too.
> >> ...
> > 
> > So whether the patch operation is atomic or not is implementation dependent?
> > 
> > Or are we saying the server needs to be able to deal with the operation being aborted in process, and roll back?
> > 
> > (just want to see that clarified)
> 
> RFC5789, section 2:
> 
> >    The server MUST apply the entire set of changes atomically and never
> >    provide (e.g., in response to a GET during this operation) a
> >    partially modified representation.  If the entire patch document
> >    cannot be successfully applied, then the server MUST NOT apply any of
> >    the changes.  The determination of what constitutes a successful
> >    PATCH can vary depending on the patch document and the type of
> >    resource(s) being modified.  For example, the common 'diff' utility
> >    can generate a patch document that applies to multiple files in a
> >    directory hierarchy.  The atomicity requirement holds for all
> >    directly affected files. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss