On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:23 -0600, Deryck Hodge wrote: > > I also think it would be nice to be able to mark an attribute as > ignorable for the sake of calculating the etag when we decorate > attributes for exporting. If status on a bug changes, that could > matter to a script. If heat changes, not so much. Heat can't be set > by an external script anyway. > > I wonder if read_only does this or could be made to do this? I asked > Leonard on IRC and he wasn't sure. He's also very busy at the moment > to dig further into the question. This seems a nice solution. But it > doesn't solve it for attributes that can be set.
Speaking from an HTTP point of view... derived aspects of an object that have *semantic* value should be included in the ETag; because the ETag controls caching. Read only has nothing to do with whether a change to a field should invalidate caches. For PATCH commands, they supply If-Match to only patch the object they think they are starting from. Its possible server side to decide that: - the Etag is a recent one - only readonly fields have been changed since that etag was issued - so we can accept the patch -Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
