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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 01 December 2011 13:01 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 7E61621F8C8A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 EoumpLKBpMds for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C39021F8B8A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2011 13:01:40 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp052) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2011 14:01:40 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19e1a9FIxlejXg6n5bfXidNy1x7iw8SYbegLOWLyU R3aZK/JjKYDJQr
Message-ID: <4ED77AB2.3000906@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:01:38 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <BC564D94-6D00-4D63-863A-8AAD00E57B3A@tzi.org> <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de> <58C610C7-5F52-4C4F-9479-4B1DED192709@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <58C610C7-5F52-4C4F-9479-4B1DED192709@tzi.org>
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] 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 13:01:43 -0000

On 2011-12-01 13:47, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 13:37, 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.
>
> I think so, too.
> (Still, something should be said about what is supposed to happen if they don't -- is that a MUST detect then?)

I would support that (MUST occur first).

> My comment ("what happens") can be generalized to the entire section 5 of draft-pbryan-json-patch-02.txt…  "Fails to complete" doesn't cut it, I think.
>
>>> -- What is the response code you want to see?
>>
>> 409 comes to mind.
>
> Sounds good.  I think that the media type spec should contain text suggesting a specific response code, to rein in the otherwise uncontrollable inventiveness of the implementers.  Could go in section 5, too.

Not sure. I think 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5789.html#rfc.section.2.2> is quite 
clear on that.

Best regards, Julian