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

Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.AtomicDelete

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:25:36 -0500
Message-Id: <10001281425.AA00013@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Thanks for the explanation.  By "state" I just meant "the set of
bindings", but I see how a non-clairvoyant reader would not know
this.  Just to confirm that I understood your point, would this
rewording be acceptable:

"A successful DELETE removes the specified binding from the specified
 collection, but (whether it succeeds or fails) MUST NOT remove any
 other other bindings from the specified collection or any other collection."


   From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>

   In message <10001271914.AA29510@tantalum>, "Geoffrey M. Clemm" writes:
   >   >"A DELETE modifies the state of the collection resource containing the
   >   >specified binding (namely, by deleting that binding), but MUST NOT
   >   >modify the state of any other collection resource as a side effect."
   >   No, that is a requirement on the implementation, not the protocol.
   >   Why don't you just use the two paragraphs that Judy listed?
   >I like Judy's two paragraphs, so that's fine with me.
   >Just for interests sake, since my rewording was intended to be just
   >state the key point from Judy's two paragraphs, what was wrong with
   >it?  Doesn't a protocol always defines requirements on the
   >implementation?  (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just didn't
   >understand your point.)

   A protocol requires that the externally visible behavior of the
   component match that expected by the protocol.  The way you phrased
   it was specifying the state within the collection component rather
   than what was visible to other components.  Consider, for example,
   that a hierarchical database implementation of collections might
   have dual-linked relations between sister collections, and thus
   deletion of one collection would have to effect another collection.

   The point being that we don't have to require anything beyond what
   the protocol means -- specifying anything beyond that is just overkill
   and tends to limit implementations unnecessarily.

Received on Friday, 28 January 2000 09:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:21 UTC