Let me say this another way... A PUT request is an undeniable request made by the client, Honor it. Honor it and let the issuer own the consequences.
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:35:43 AM UTC-5, coda coder wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 7:38:48 AM UTC-5, Arlen Beiler wrote: >> >> The backup feature could probably be better described as a complete >> version history. I can disable e-tags if someone is using backups and they >> won't lose anything. >> > > I don't know the detail, unfortunately, but if disabling e-tags is in > essence what I was asking you for, that's the option I (personally) would > prefer. > > >> >> The other option is to add a setting that would allow you to set a time >> window within which an e-tag is valid. So if most of your e-tags are off by >> one second, you can set a window of five seconds and a request with an Etag >> that is within 5 seconds of the modified time will get saved. >> > > There's a difference between backing up a TW when it is first opened from > disk and backing up on a save-by-save basis. I'm assuming we're talking > about the former, not the latter. The former is what I assume you mean by > "version history". > > I already have that in place and don't see any need to change it, though I > maybe would if I felt the need -- can't imagine what that need might be > though. > > As regards the time window... any code that takes a "best guess" at the > appropriate period of time is likely to suffer from distrust. Also, I have > some wikis that are open for weeks and many others that are transient > throughout a single day. Some are modified a lot, others rarely. I just > don't know what time period I'd pick. And then I'd always wonder if my > next save was going to suffer a 412 because I'd chosen a poor "best guess" > period. Hence, distrust. > > Really, honestly, I'd prefer no time checking at all. Then, as I said > above, TS would become usable (and, trustworthy). > > >> >> On Oct 26, 2017 2:25 PM, "@TiddlyTweeter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The whole question of backup in TW is something that has interested me >> from when I started. >> >> I have formed an OPINION on it. >> >> (1) its nice when it can be made to work seamlessly from within TW. A >> plus--but not a necessity. I'd rather programmers didn't struggle over it >> though. I'd rather they paid central attention to keeping TW up and >> running--something only they can do. >> >> (2) backup is very appropriately handled by Backup Programs. The good >> ones give multiple options that far exceed anything TW can do because they >> are dedicated to that one task. >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TiddlyWiki" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7127d415-6d48-484f-86bb-2386c25aa2b7%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7127d415-6d48-484f-86bb-2386c25aa2b7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/bdc6284f-488d-4456-8343-34e72f6e7749%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
