Re: Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for that patch -- I've just merged it to trunk. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Krzysztof Jurewicz < krzysztof.jurew...@gmail.com> wrote: > W dniu 21.05.2013 14:38, Russell Keith-Magee pisze: > > These are all reasonable and fairly small I'd be happy

Re: Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

W dniu 21.05.2013 14:38, Russell Keith-Magee pisze: These are all reasonable and fairly small I'd be happy to see these added after the alpha - a ticket and patch would definitely be welcome. I’ve created a ticket and a pull request with PATCH support for View and RedirectView (support for tes

Re: Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

I'm basically in agreement with Russ here. I'd consider the first three points as being non-controversial. With regards to ProcessFormView I think implementing a put() method, but not a patch() method falls squarely into the 'good-enough' category of behavior. In any case, although there are e

Re: Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

Hi Krzysztof On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Krzysztof Jurewicz < krzysztof.jurew...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a RFC describing HTTP method named PATCH: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc5789 > > Quoting that RFC: > “ The difference between the PUT and

Re: Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

+1 Many times I had to add this method to the test client. 2013/5/20 Krzysztof Jurewicz > There is a RFC describing HTTP method named PATCH: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc5789 > > Quoting that RFC: > “ The difference between the PUT and PATCH requests

Proposal: Support for HTTP PATCH method

There is a RFC describing HTTP method named PATCH: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789 Quoting that RFC: “ The difference between the PUT and PATCH requests is reflected in the way the server processes the enclosed entity to modify the resource identified by the Request-URI. In a PUT requ