This doesn't need to be specified in the spec. I've recommended a
simple warning about concurrent updates, but that's entirely optional on
our part. There's no need to use MUST|SHOULD for this.
- James
Eric Scheid wrote:
On 6/11/05 1:47 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In section 9, last sentence of the first paragraph: ³Clients SHOULD be
constructed with this in mind and SHOULD perform a GET on the member
resource before editing.²
"Each member entry is represented by an atom:entry element, but those
entries are not an editable representation of the entry. To retrieve the
source representation of the entry, clients send a GET request to the URI
found in each entry's pub:edit element (see Section 4.3.1)."
--PaceFeedsNotCollections
Nice wording, but that only addresses the incompleteness problem, it does not
address the clashing users problem.
Hmm, I don't know what the clashing users problem is. Could you enlighten me?
You retrieve an entry, edit it, PUT it back, retain a copy. Later, you edit
the entry again, and go to PUT it back... but in between those two edits
someone else has edited the entry.
Thus, "SHOULD perform a GET on the member resource before editing"
e.
