3 ms·
I do get that, just saw the "test" op, to either pass or fail the whole change as a sort of transaction. That is really neat. But I just find that the 1 by 1 a
by graypegg 2y ago
I do get that, just saw the "test" op, to either pass or fail the whole change as a sort of transaction. That is really neat.
But I just find that the 1 by 1 approach is easier to reason about if you're opening this up to the internet. I'd personally feel more comfortable with the security model of 1 URL + Session => 1 JSON key.
- mattmanser 2y agoI'm actually using it at the moment in my work and I'm often doing 3-4 updates per patch. You want them to all fail or not, One-by-one is a bit of a weird suggestion tbh. You shouldn't be reasoning that way about code. If you are going to get a 4xx response to one of the 4 property updates you want them all to fail at once. Just like anything else we use like SQL.
- vlowther 2y ago$WORK project heavily utilizes the test op to enable atomic updates to objects across multiple competing clients. It winds up working really well for that purpose.
- CrimsonRain 2y agoWho generates the test op? Client? Or the server?
- kchr 2y agoCan you elaborate on how this affects the security model?