Hi Ian
I might be considered the "guilty party" here. I have argued cogently (a while back) against the need to overload the Open APIs with both PATCH and PUT, since anything you can do with PUT you can also do with PATCH, while the converse is not true. Additionally, PUT is more difficult to use, since it is a destructive replacement, and requires the consumer to have the entire document (and take care not to touch fields that shouldn't be touched, such as ID), while PATCH allows selective modifications in any place in the document.
It appears that my views were accepted, and as a result most recently published API swaggers and user guides do not include PUT.
Always willing to learn, so perhaps you could enlighten us on the specific circumstances that force you to use PUT.
Note that you can always extend your API implementation by adding a PUT operation, obviously this will not affect conformance to the standard.
Hope it helps
------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Oct 27, 2020 22:11
From: Ian Mounsey
Subject: TMF640 - Why are PUT operations not supported whereas they are generally allowed as per TMF630?
There are certain use cases where entities beyond our control only allow PUT style interactions when making a modification to a service.
Why are PUT operations not supported in TMF640 whereas they are generally allowed as per TMF630?
------------------------------
Ian Mounsey
Telstra Corporation
------------------------------