W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:28:14 +0200
To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEAMFGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:09 PM
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
>
> Well, it really all depends on how compelling the use cases are
> that require
> ETag support.  It's ok to make servers do things that may be hard for some
> implementations if it delivers solid benefits for the client.  I
> heard some
> pretty solid use cases at the Interop event.

Hard yes, impossible no.

If a server that complies to RFC2518 doesn't comply to RFC2518bis, then
we've broken the IETF publication process, haven't we?

> In your filesystem example, as long as all of the access to the
> files can be
> intercepted by the server software somehow, keeping around an
> ETag is not a
> big problem as you can bump up a sequence number on each write.  A simple

Incrementing sequence numbers isn't the problem. Persisting them may be.

> filesystem based server may also have problems with supporting UUIDs as
> well.

UUIDs for what?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 14:28:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT