W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: is DELETE "best effort"?

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:09:42 -0800
Message-ID: <7DE119D3D0E15543874F7561EECBDBED0261A0E5@BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'bill@carpenter.ORG'" <bill@carpenter.ORG>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bill@carpenter.ORG [mailto:bill@carpenter.ORG]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 11:46 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: is DELETE "best effort"?
> 
> 
> RFC-2518 doesn't come right out and say so, but I think it implies
> that a DELETE on a collection is on a "best effort" basis, where you
> can deduce what got DELETEd versus what didn't (and why) from a
> possible multistatus response.
> 
> Suppose I request a DELETE of /zoo/, where /zoo/ contains /zoo/mammals
> and /zoo/birds.  Suppose there is a problem with the DELETE of
> /zoo/mammals (it's locked by my corporate rival, Snidely Whiplash).
> Should the server, having discovered this, go ahead and attempt a
> DELETE of /zoo/birds?
> 
> Section 8.6.2 says that if you can't DELETE a resource, you shouldn't
> DELETE its ancestors (for the sake of namespace consistency).  It is
> silent on what you should do about the resource's siblings, though
> (the example in 8.6.2 isn't bushy enough to show it).  There is a hint
> that some of the DELETEs may be allowed to succeed while others fail
> in that 204 response codes are to be omitted from the multistatus
> because they are the default success code.
> 
> Is DELETE intended to be "best effort"?
> -- 
> bill@carpenter.ORG   (WJCarpenter)           PGP
> bill@bubblegum.net                    0x91865119
> 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25  73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2000 16:10:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:53 GMT