IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 01 December 2011 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 E07941F0CB7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:51:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.139, 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 1d6hlzZ8U6tw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7E01F0CBF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.46.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89CA6509DB; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:51:41 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 08:51:33 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E443D75-D1AC-451F-9B17-115C9A6C7696@mnot.net>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <BC564D94-6D00-4D63-863A-8AAD00E57B3A@tzi.org> <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 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: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:51:50 -0000

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. 


On 01/12/2011, at 11:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-01 13:26, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> What happens when a test fails?
>> -- Keep or rewind the changes done so far?
>> 	(or do we stipulate "test" has to come before modifiers?)
> 
> I think requiring them to come first makes a lot of sense.
> 
>> -- What is the response code you want to see?
> 
> 409 comes to mind.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email