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

RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:03:41 -0500
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF97781717.B1B84D41-ON85256CE1.005162FA@us.ibm.com>

> > Were you thinking that this header (say "Atomic-Operation:") would be
> > used for only MOVE, or for all of the relevant operations (COPY,
> > DELETE, etc.)?
> Actually, I'd really prefer not to define additional headers.
> Thinking of it, we *also* can't agree on the right DELETE semantics (see
> separate discussion). So one way to address this would be to leave DELETE
> and MOVE as they are, and to add
> - UNBIND (that really really really removes bindings, thus has the DELETE
> semantics currently specified by the BIND draft) and
> - RENAME (which would be a true MOVE that would fail when the server
> implement it as internal namespace operation).

Just a couple thoughts that I'm not going to have time to join in a
coherent manner...

My initial opinion when I saw this posting a day ago was that RENAME wasn't
necessary.  I don't recall now why I said that.   It might just have been
that it's less
necessary than DELETE... but the recent case of the deletion before MOVE
would change that view.  If I recall any other reason why I thought RENAME
necessary, I'll speak up.

I'm okay with UNBIND (and I can explain why later) except...

We have shown that atomic DELETE it should be
implementable and the case of a partially finished MOVE with overwrite
really bad to me.  I'm not sure we should let servers do that.   (I have an
equivocating thought on this that I'll hold in reserve. :-))  So if they
implement the apparently atomic DELETE for MOVE, then they should be
able to do it for DELETE itself.

Previously we've discussed both headers and UNBIND.  They were rejected.
I don't recall why though, so we probably should check on that.

Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
I do not check nn621779@smallcue.com
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2003 10:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:27 UTC