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

RE: PROPPATCH Error minimization

From: Tim Ellison OTT <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:05:36 -0400
To: ccjason@us.ibm.com (ccjason), w3c-dist-auth@w3.org (w3c-dist-auth)
Message-ID: <1999Oct13.110350.1250.1350772@otismtp.ott.oti.com>

    Also note... if we say there is no minimization... that means
    even if the PROPPATCH had to back out everything due
    to one error, the response will still need to list all those 200's
    along with the single error that occured.  Does it sound fine
    to outlaw the elmination of those 200's?

If the server backs out changes then the 200's would become 424-Failed 
Dependency's wouldn't they?

    Also, we don't say if a proppatch request can set a property
    several times.  I guess it's implicit that it can.  That does
    make for somewhat more complex server response
    generating code... unless we're going to allow each properties
    to generate more than one response if altered multiple times.

I guess it would.  Imagine
Since the order of the responses is not guaranteed (i.e. error minimization 
may rearrange the propstats) I may get
     <propstat>foo & foo = Failed Dependency
     <propstat>foo = Conflict
So which of the update directives generated the conflict?
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 11:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:20 UTC