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

Re: BIND method response codes

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:05:55 +0200
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
Message-Id: <19E1A629-DC27-11D6-9950-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

Maybe it would be more appropriate to reuse the response codes as
defined for MOVE in RFC 2518:

201: newly created
204: replaced existing resource
etc.

//Stefan

Am Mittwoch, 09.10.02, um 22:19 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, 
Geoff:

> A problem with 200/201, is that 201 means "a new resource
> was created", but a BIND never creates a new resource, but
> just creates a new binding to an existing resource.  We could
> of course still use 200/201, but I'd be concerned that it would
> be misleading.

Ohoh. resources, uris and representations. That's www-tag ground
we're treating on here. I think one needs at least 8 years experience
in HTTP and Apache development to talk about that topic... ;)

Anyway: a BIND creates a mapping for an URI to a representation
exactly like PUT does. That the representation is not supplied by
the client, but reused from another URI, is not relevant.

> If a client has asked that BIND overwrite any existing binding
> for that segment, why would it care whether or not there was
> already a binding there?
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: BIND method response codes
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> similarily to the PUT method, I'd like to be able to distinguish 
> between
>
> - a new BIND was created (201)
> - an existing BIND was overwritten (200)
>
>
> Julian
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 04:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT