On 11/6/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:52 AM, 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" > > Simply doing a GET is not a solution to the (ugly, hairy) general > problem of concurrent editing.
You can detect lost updates using ETags: "Detecting the Lost Update Problem Using Unreserved Checkout" http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/ -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
