Eric Scheid wrote:
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"
Why does this have to me micromanaged? If the server supports strong
etags, and the client uses a conditional PUT, why would that be a bad thing?
Speaking of which, why not require a HEAD request to check for changes,
or require a conditional GET (resulting in a 304 when the entity didn't
change) instead?
Best regards, Julian
