IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON patch: "test" operation

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 30 December 2011 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E09421F8C2D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:12:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPbGBMdaLUiS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5577F21F8C2B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2011 12:12:51 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 30 Dec 2011 13:12:51 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/8GrAdvhf8qrCvEkeSZ2P4jbeX1trUjtR1SN9+UL Rj34U6TPNx+ZXZ
Message-ID: <4EFDAABF.7020804@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:12:47 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <BC564D94-6D00-4D63-863A-8AAD00E57B3A@tzi.org> <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de> <6E443D75-D1AC-451F-9B17-115C9A6C7696@mnot.net> <4ED7F8C2.9030804@gmx.de> <37E09A53-E9F4-45D2-BB8F-79655BECDBB2@mnot.net> <1322779521.1958.1.camel@neutron> <4EFC8A08.7000105@gmx.de> <1325222688.18477.25.camel@neutron> <CAKTR03_GdgdTwJF073uV1iUGSEW1E6wXxO-OtYpWReARBhRMgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFD954B.3090006@gmx.de> <CAKTR03_XZOW3HK4MLjG8n+-SmCBp68Zym4S-g6vj3NXa-=kHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKTR03_XZOW3HK4MLjG8n+-SmCBp68Zym4S-g6vj3NXa-=kHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON patch: "test" operation
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:12:55 -0000

On 2011-12-30 12:36, Sam Johnston wrote:
 > ...
>     Of course that depends on how you define the lifetime of a resource.
>     Does a resource which currently doesn't have a retrievable
>     representation "exist"?
>
>     Technically, PATCH can work for creating an initial mapping as well.
>
> That's a contrived interpretation — is it something we want to support?
> I'd rather a PATCH throw a 4xx error if a resource didn't exist... an
> empty PUT would create a resource that could then be PATCHed, no?
> ...

It probably belongs into the description of the patch format.

I don't see how requiring an empty PUT makes things better, though.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email