From: Gili <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:08:26 -0700 (PDT)

Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>>> That would be against the semantics of PUT.
>>>
>>
>> According to who or what?
>
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#PUT
>
> Which is why the following draft has been created:
>
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-http-patch-11.html
>

Can you please quote the specific sentences from
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#PUT touch upon this topic? I
read the entire section and didn't see any of it to conflict with what I'm
doing. I understand that the PATCH document alleges that there is a problem
with what I'm doing, but frankly he doesn't provide any proof of this. It's
not clear how using PUT for incomplete updates could cause problems for
proxies.

Also, http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-http-patch-11.html is
a draft that expired on July 2008. I'm not sure what its status is as of
today.

Gili

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Reading-entity-body-tp1366219p1369560.html
Sent from the Jersey mailing list archive at Nabble.com.