Re: Draft for Resumable Uploads

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 12.04.2022 um 01:50 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
> All snark aside (sorry about that, Austin, all)...
>
>  >
>  >-----------------
> PATCH (RFC 5789) specifically permits resource creation
> <https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc5789.html#patch>:
>
>
>         If the Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, the
>         server MAY create a new resource, depending on the patch
>         document type (whether it can logically modify a null resource)
>         and permissions, etc.
>
>
>     So as long as the PATCH media type can describe creating a resource
>     (which this does), PATCH can create resources.
>      >-----------------
>      >
>
>
> The reason I think this is bad protocol design to the point it makes my
> brain explode, is it introduces the notion that method semantics vary by
> media type. The interface is now resource-specific, rather than generic.
> Transparency is lost because the message is not self-descriptive, e.g.
> intermediaries would require a lookup table of media types in order to
> determine method semantics.

Not really. The semantics of PATCH is "apply the payload as patch to
whatever the current representation of the resource is". That includes
resources with no current representation.

Best regards, Julian