On 2009-11-13 20:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring
atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not
idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the
PATCH,
but the client then fails to receive an indication of success due to
an extraneous network glitch (and TCP reset?), then what prevents the
client
issuing the same PATCH again? In other words, absent a two-phase commit,
there appears to be no transactional integrity.
How is this different from PUT or POST? If you need repeatability of the
request, just make the request conditional using "if-match"...
PATCH seems more dangerous than those simply because it is partial
update of a resource, and I don't feel it's sufficient to say that
there might be a way of detecting that it has failed to complete,
if you're executing a series of patches that build on one another.
Talking about transactional integrity in the IETF has always been
hard, for some reason. But something described as "patch" is exactly
where you need it, IMHO.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf