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

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:36:05 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2CE6F12@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
   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
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 09:36:43 GMT

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