Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH |
I guess my knowledge was simply based on old practices. Reading back through RFC7231 and RFC5789 it appears you are correct.
Quote:The difference between the PUT and PATCH requests is reflected in the To the best of my knowledge those are the two most current versions of the relevant RFCs. So, yes, PATCH should be the default. In the end, it doesn't really matter because it's all in how you code your application to behave, anyway To be correct, though, we should probably change that. |
Messages In This Thread |
Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by natanfelles - 07-20-2017, 06:15 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by Narf - 07-21-2017, 01:46 AM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by natanfelles - 07-21-2017, 09:37 AM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by skunkbad - 07-21-2017, 04:37 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by natanfelles - 07-22-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by kilishan - 07-22-2017, 08:02 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by ciadmin - 07-22-2017, 09:11 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by natanfelles - 07-22-2017, 09:21 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by ciadmin - 07-22-2017, 10:04 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by natanfelles - 07-23-2017, 05:46 AM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by Narf - 07-24-2017, 12:17 AM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by skunkbad - 07-24-2017, 01:50 PM
RE: Resource Routes - PUT vs PATCH - by Narf - 07-25-2017, 12:26 AM
|