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

RE: BIND method response codes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:37:01 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGELEFIAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:20 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BIND method response codes
> 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

That's correct with the WebDAV/BIND definition of a resource, but not with
the generic (RFC2396) one -- the binding itself has a unique identifier (and
thus has identity), therefore *can* be considered a resource.

> of course still use 200/201, but I'd be concerned that it would
> be misleading.
> 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?

Well, why would it care in the case of PUT or MOVE? I'm just looking for
consistency with other methods.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 05:18:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:26 UTC