W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: DELETE in WebDAV Collections, URI to filename mappings, legacy servers

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:58:45 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256764.000B0D5C.00@D51MTA07.pok.ibm.com>

I just want to point out something that you might have already discussed.
It's just that the URI to filename mappings can get unintuitive... even if
the server doesn't have versioning support.

   Let's start with the following configuration and let's assume a file
based server...

 /url1.html     (url segments)
 /html/url1.html    (resources... aka filenames)

Now lets bind /url2 to the resource we have there

 /url1.html    /url2.html   (url segments)
      |         /
      |       /
      |     /
 /html/url1.html    (resources... aka filenames)

Now let's UNBIND  /url1.html

             /url2.html   (url segments)
 /html/url1.html    (resources... aka filenames)

Now let's do a PUT on /url1.html

/url1.html             /url2.html   (url segments)
  |                      /
  |                    /
  |                  /
xxxx.html     /html/url1.html    (resources... aka filenames)

where xxxxx.html is some filename other than /html/url1.html.  A different
filename had to be generated because that one was already in use.    So now
we have a situation there is a url /url1.html  and there is a
filename/html/url1.html, but they aren't bound to each other.

I'm just pointing this out because it's not what users telneted into
existing servers would expect.  And because it didn't require that I have
versioning support to get this situation.

I'm hoping we all agree that this is an acceptable price to pay for
references.  (If you don't use references on your site, this shouldn't be
an issue.)


Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 30 April 1999 22:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:19 UTC