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

RE: BIND response codes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:05:55 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEGLFJAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:39 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Jim Whitehead; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: BIND response codes
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 10/15/2002 at 07:49 ZE2, "Julian Reschke"  wrote:
> > For the same reason a Unix file system by default behaves this way.
> >
> > Hard links to collections are dangerous (loops) and in most cases
> required
> > (symlinks aka redirect refs to collections in most cases are all that's
> > required).
>
> For example, garbage collecting a file system in the presence of
> loops can be relatively expensive.
>
> I really don't want a new status code, but if we can't find an
> appropriate
>
> existing one, I'm tentatively supportive of Julian's proposal to add one.

I think it's clear that there *will* be implementations that do not allow
additional bindings on collections (for instance those that are
Unix-filesystem based).

We don't need a new status code, I was just trying to figure out whether to
return 405 (not allowed) or 403 (forbidden) with a well-defined
pre-condition (DAV:collection-binds-supported?).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 17:06:29 GMT

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