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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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/