W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Operations not Atomic (was: bind draft issues)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:42:23 +0100
To: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEIDGKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:03 AM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: Operations not Atomic (was: bind draft issues)
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 02:09  PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > I can follow for DELETE (see separate mail), but I'm at a loss about
> > how
> > MOVE and BIND can be non-atomic. Could you please explain?
> >
> > Julian
>
> Julian,
>
> Oops, I typed "BIND" when I meant "COPY".
>
> For MOVE, I mostly mean the DELETE that occurs when the MOVE causes
> an overwrite, although I could be convinced that ending up with 2
> bindings to the collection in the event of an interrupted MOVE,
> while inadvisable, shouldn't be prohibited.

That's indeed a problem. All "overwrite" operations require a DELETE (this
also applies to BIND (!)), so having them atomic when the target is a
collection has the same problems has the collection DELETE itself.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 03:42:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT