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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 01 December 2011 21:59 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 219B121F9346 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:59:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.507, 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 phjmZW8JKO2O for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4425B21F9344 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2011 21:59:35 -0000
Received: from p5DCC92A3.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.146.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2011 22:59:35 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+UGbgKkjCU+WVqK6vUbw9YB1TkQXV0ehw6+/2D5i i74fcNQTWIku85
Message-ID: <4ED7F8C2.9030804@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:59:30 +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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <BC564D94-6D00-4D63-863A-8AAD00E57B3A@tzi.org> <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de> <6E443D75-D1AC-451F-9B17-115C9A6C7696@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <6E443D75-D1AC-451F-9B17-115C9A6C7696@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:59:42 -0000

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)

Best regards, Julian