RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

   > From: Clemm, Geoff
   > If you are using bindings to capture some relationship, and that
   > relationship is cyclic, then you can't capture that relationship
   > if you are not allowed to create cyclic bindings.

   I'd still feel better if you could give a simple example...

Suppose the relationship I'm capturing in a set of collections
is the "uses" relationship between software modules.  This me to
use pathnames like "moda/modb/modc" to refer to the module named
modc used by the module named modb which in turn is used by the
module named moda.  Since the "uses" relationship can be cyclic,
I could get a path like "moda/modb/modc/moda/...".

>    BTW: this precondition applies to all namespace-manipulating
>    operations (a MOVE of a collection may fail for the same reason).

Good point.  I'll add the precondition to the MOVE method as well.

Cheers,
Geoff