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

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:53:20 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEDEFLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:28 AM
> To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253
>
>
>    From: Elias Sinderson [mailto:elias@cse.ucsc.edu]
>    Recursive operations such as a depth infinity MOVE/COPY/PROPFIND
>    will have problems if there is a cycle.
> These problems are all solvable in a straightforward fashion.  A MOVE
> has no problems with a cycle (it is just the deletion of one binding
> and the creation of another).  A COPY would have to check for any
> resource that has multiple entries in its DAV:parent-set, to see if it
> has already been copied (in which case a second binding to the copy is
> created).  A PROPFIND has to keep track of what resources it has
> already visited.

This COPY behaviour makes sense, but can we really require it? Right now it
seems completely legal to just create multiple plain new resources with same
content and dead properties...

> ...

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:54:03 GMT

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