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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:10:47 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEAIGLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Geoff,

thanks for the update. I think this will allow us to make progress towards
getting the spec finished.

One comment re:

> rather than "best effort" behavior.  Eventually, we concluded
> that any server that supported multiple bindings to
> a resource should also be capable of supporting atomic
> DELETE/MOVE behavior, and since no user would want non-atomic

A server may want to implement *parts* of the binding spec without actually
allowing the explicit creation of new bindings. In particular, supporting
DAV:resource-id seems to be a very useful thing even if a server doesn't
plan to support *multiple* bindings.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:55 PM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
>
>
>
> A few years ago, we did discuss introducing new methods
> (I prefer UNBIND/REBIND, rather than UNBIND/RENAME) so
> that a client can specify when it requires atomic behavior
> rather than "best effort" behavior.  Eventually, we concluded
> that any server that supported multiple bindings to
> a resource should also be capable of supporting atomic
> DELETE/MOVE behavior, and since no user would want non-atomic
> behavior if they could get atomic behavior, it is simplest just
> to associate the atomic behavior with the support of
> the BIND operation.
>
> But since we have folks who insist their users want non-atomic
> behavior (even when the server could support atomic behavior!),
> I'm willing to go back to the UNBIND/REBIND approach. But I'd
> like to at least provide guidance to implementors stating that
> DELETE/MOVE *should* be implemented atomically as UNBIND/REBIND
> if the server is capable of doing so.
>
> I've posted a revised version of the binding draft to the
> binding web site.  Let me know what you think.
> <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-01.2.htm>
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>
> > From: Brian Korver
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:48  PM, Brian Korver wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:34  PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > >> Now I *do* agree that in many cases clients will actually *want* the
> > >> "weak"
> > >> MOVE. So maybe we should consider supporting both (either by a new
> > >> method,
> > >> or by adding parameters to MOVE).
> > >
> >
> > 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 can't
> implement it as internal namespace operation).
>
> This would make discovery of the new functionality much easier.
>
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 09:10:56 GMT

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