Re: PUT, If-Match, 412 - over-constrained?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-02-22 08:09, Grzegorz Calkowski wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I found this old post by Roy at:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/10100
>
> "A more interesting question is whether the spec over-constrains the
> case where a PUT is successful but tried again. In other words, should
> the server be allowed to accept the PUT if the etag differs but the
> current state matches what is being PUT? Subversion handles such
> cases nicely because it is common for two developers to patch the
> same bugs. I think the "MUST respond with 412" is yet another case

When two developers fix the same bug, how likely is it that they fix it 
*exactly* the same way? That seems to be a bit far-fetched unless it's a 
really really trivial bug.

> of a bogus requirement being added in 2616.
>
> Note: this is an HTTP spec issue, not a REST issue.
>
> ....Roy"
>
> HTTPbis still requires 412 when the only thing that differs is etag. Any chance this will change?

We could add a special case, but is this scenario happening frequently 
enough to justify that?

best regards, Julian