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

RE: [hwarncke@Adobe.COM: Re: [dav-dev] Depth Infinity Requests]

From: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:44:03 -0400
To: "Jim Doubek" <jdoubek@macromedia.com>, "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBIBDBCLDPAGPIKGMCAEPHCLAA.dbarrell@opentext.com>
And an intelligent client might be able to make n depth requests based on 0
or 1 depth responses that are useful and will not fail where an infinity
request would...

Cheers
Dylan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Doubek
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 4:32 PM
> To: Jim Davis; Greg Stein; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [hwarncke@Adobe.COM: Re: [dav-dev] Depth Infinity Requests]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Note that for realistic sized repositories, say 50K to 100K files, any
> depth=infinity request near the repository root is going to be too
> expensive. For instance, an allprop request in such a case will be several
> to tens of megabytes, and may take minutes to produce.
>
> While it may be convenient for clients going against small
> repositories, I'd
> expect that most servers will fail most infinity requests most of
> the time.
>
> I think a lot of the uses that people envision for depth=infinity are more
> likely served by intelligent tree-walking, or by DASL. The possiblility of
> failure forces you to code a tree-walk into your client anyways.
>
> - jim
> ------------------------------------------
> Jim Doubek
> Macromedia, Inc.
> jdoubek@macromedia.com
> http://www.macromedia.com/
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
>     Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 1:09 PM
>     To: Greg Stein; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>     Subject: Re: [hwarncke@Adobe.COM: Re: [dav-dev] Depth
> Infinity Requests]
>
>
>     At 07:15 AM 7/6/00 -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
>     >What is the general consensus on PROPFIND with Depth:
>     infinity? I quoted a
>     >couple messages below that tend to favor disallowing them. I got that
>     >impression from some other comments on this list, but couldn't
>     find specific
>     >references.
>     >
>     >For clarity: can prople give opinions on simply disabling
>     PROPFIND infinity?
>
>     I oppose disabling infinity.  it is useful (as other emails
> have shown).
>
>     I agree to adding a principled way to refuse a request that's
>     too expensive.
>
Received on Thursday, 6 July 2000 16:45:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:54 GMT