Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:EclipseLink/Development/2.4.0/JPA-RS/REST-API"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
--[[User:Tom.ware.oracle.com|Tom.ware.oracle.com]] 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | --[[User:Tom.ware.oracle.com|Tom.ware.oracle.com]] 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
PUT should not be used for INSERT. PUT is supposed to be itempotent and because of the possibility of sequencing, creates are not itempotent. | PUT should not be used for INSERT. PUT is supposed to be itempotent and because of the possibility of sequencing, creates are not itempotent. | ||
| − | + | * We should use PUT for update | |
| − | + | * We should use POST for insert | |
--[[User:Douglas.clarke.oracle.com|Doug]] 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC) This should relate to JPA and therefore: | --[[User:Douglas.clarke.oracle.com|Doug]] 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC) This should relate to JPA and therefore: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* Should we try to guarantee itempotency on PUT? | * Should we try to guarantee itempotency on PUT? | ||
** A check for sequencing and then a does exist query? | ** A check for sequencing and then a does exist query? | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Douglas.clarke.oracle.com|Doug]] 15:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I believe an em.merge does existence and sequence checking according to the descriptor's settings. I believe it would be idempotent for a new instance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Tom.ware.oracle.com|Tom.ware.oracle.com]] 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | I think if you merge an object that has sequencing with its id field unpopulated, an insert will happen and sequencing will populate the identity field - hence if I did two consecutive puts with the same JSON object (with no identity field populated), it would result in two creates - not itempotent. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:42, 21 December 2011
--Tom.ware.oracle.com 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC) PUT should not be used for INSERT. PUT is supposed to be itempotent and because of the possibility of sequencing, creates are not itempotent.
- We should use PUT for update
- We should use POST for insert
--Doug 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC) This should relate to JPA and therefore:
- POST == EntityManager.persist
- PUT == EntityManager.merge
The side-effect of this is that a merge of a new entity can result in an INSERT.
--Tom.ware.oracle.com 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Should we try to guarantee itempotency on PUT?
- A check for sequencing and then a does exist query?
--Doug 15:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I believe an em.merge does existence and sequence checking according to the descriptor's settings. I believe it would be idempotent for a new instance.
--Tom.ware.oracle.com 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I think if you merge an object that has sequencing with its id field unpopulated, an insert will happen and sequencing will populate the identity field - hence if I did two consecutive puts with the same JSON object (with no identity field populated), it would result in two creates - not itempotent.