| Time |
S |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:09 |
|
|
fuzzyhorns joined #rest |
| 00:58 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 01:14 |
|
|
tbsf joined #rest |
| 01:16 |
|
|
tonyacunar joined #rest |
| 04:01 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 05:36 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 06:28 |
|
|
_ollie joined #rest |
| 06:42 |
|
|
Macaveli joined #rest |
| 06:54 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 08:19 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 08:36 |
|
|
bigbluehat joined #rest |
| 08:47 |
|
|
Tomatosoup- joined #rest |
| 09:06 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:11 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:21 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:30 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:37 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:45 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 09:48 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 11:10 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 11:17 |
|
|
tonyacunar joined #rest |
| 11:22 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 13:05 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 13:09 |
|
|
StatelessCat joined #rest |
| 13:39 |
|
|
ralphschindler joined #rest |
| 13:44 |
|
|
vishnurao joined #rest |
| 14:07 |
|
|
foist joined #rest |
| 14:13 |
|
|
fuzzyhorns joined #rest |
| 14:42 |
|
|
saml joined #rest |
| 14:48 |
|
saml |
why would you use PATCH instead of POST ? |
| 14:51 |
|
Tomatosoup- |
saml: to update records |
| 14:52 |
|
saml |
why not use POST for that? |
| 14:52 |
|
Tomatosoup- |
POST for update is meant to change whole instance |
| 14:53 |
|
Tomatosoup- |
and patch to only change part of it |
| 14:53 |
|
saml |
for json, looks like there's application/merge-patch+json |
| 14:53 |
|
saml |
could be useful for *both* POST and PATCH |
| 15:10 |
|
|
wsiqueir joined #rest |
| 15:58 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 16:12 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 16:16 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 16:18 |
|
|
tbsf joined #rest |
| 16:33 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 16:39 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 16:44 |
|
|
wsieroci joined #rest |
| 16:59 |
|
_ollie |
Tomatosoup: with PATCH you communicate more intent. The outcome of a POST request can be a new resource, that's never the case for PATCH. |
| 17:01 |
|
_ollie |
Also, the spec for PATCH defines an Allow-Patch header to be used with OPTIONS so that the server can communicate the patch media types supported. |
| 18:01 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 18:11 |
|
|
foist joined #rest |
| 18:27 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 18:44 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 18:55 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 18:56 |
|
|
tbsf joined #rest |
| 18:57 |
|
|
rxo joined #rest |
| 18:57 |
|
|
tbsf joined #rest |
| 18:58 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 19:04 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 19:09 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 19:21 |
|
|
Macaveli joined #rest |
| 19:26 |
|
|
vishnurao joined #rest |
| 19:29 |
|
|
tbsf_ joined #rest |
| 19:30 |
|
|
tbsf__ joined #rest |
| 19:46 |
|
|
Macaveli joined #rest |
| 19:50 |
|
|
fuzzyhorns joined #rest |
| 20:02 |
|
|
k_j joined #rest |
| 20:02 |
|
k_j |
hi |
| 20:04 |
|
k_j |
i wonder if a PUT allowed to update a resource partially should really be a POST instead |
| 20:05 |
|
asdf |
k_j, you mean a PATCH? eh, IMO partial PUTs are fine; people disagree sometimes |
| 20:05 |
|
k_j |
but what the rationale against partial put's? |
| 20:05 |
|
k_j |
*what is |
| 20:10 |
|
asdf |
actually, not sure :) |
| 20:11 |
|
k_j |
asdf, do you allow partial put's? |
| 20:12 |
|
asdf |
sure |
| 20:12 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 20:17 |
|
|
ralphschindler joined #rest |
| 20:53 |
|
asdf |
eh, backbone just doesn't support that, which is fine - if your server supports partial PUTs, surely it still supports full PUTs :) |
| 20:56 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 21:08 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 21:10 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 21:25 |
|
|
tonyacunar joined #rest |
| 22:31 |
|
|
sp1rs joined #rest |
| 23:01 |
|
|
tbsf joined #rest |
| 23:03 |
|
|
tbsf_ joined #rest |
| 23:23 |
|
|
tonyacunar joined #rest |
| 23:34 |
|
|
fuzzyhorns joined #rest |
