Re: [APPS-REVIEW] review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15

[Aaron Stone <aaron at serendipity.cx>]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:48:27 +0100, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:
> Aaron,
>> My open question:
>> What does one do with a patch document that describes actions on
multiple
>> resources? Should we leave it assumed that this just doesn't make sense
>> in
>> the HTTP context? Or does it make sense, if, say, the resource of the
>> PATCH
>> method maps to a directory and the patch document applies to several
>> files
>> within that directory? In that case, does anything need to be said
about
>> the behavior of PATCH for this type of patch?
>>
>>
>>    
> 
> Here I think the draft is pretty specific:
> 
>     The PATCH
>     method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and also
>     MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be
>     created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH.
> 
> 
> So to me that says, 'yeah, patch might monkey with groups of files'.  
> It's left to the server to decide whether that's allowed.  I would 
> imagine this would be based on who is requesting the operation, and 
> whether the operation would succeed on the individual files separately.

I thought I saw something about multiple resources on first read, but I
missed it the second time around. Thanks for pointing it out. This is the
same place you're suggesting to add 'delete' -- I agree.

If it's worth adding some example text, here's a suggestion:

   For example, the common 'diff' utility can generate a patch document
that
   applies to multiple files in a directory hierarchy. A client could
apply
   this patch to a server using the PATCH method on a resource that maps
to a
   directory on the server containing the files to be patched. The
requirement
   for atomicity of the request holds for all affected files.

> It's a pretty well written draft.

Yep, agreed.

Aaron