RE: MOVEs across file systems

This is pretty good!  I look forward to seeing it in context of the
draft, when we can submit drafts again of course.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't think that Julian's suggestion would be popular (:-).
> 
> So I think realistically, we should focus on constraining the
> behavior of MOVE/DELETE in the presence of multiple bindings
> to the same resource, so that they don't violate the basic 
> requirements of multiple bindings.
> 
> The current form of that proposal is:
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Instead of saying:
> 
>   "DELETE SHOULD be UNBIND if UNBIND is supported"
> 
> we should say something like:
> 
>   "When DELETE is applied to a collection, it MUST NOT modify the
>    membership of another collection, except when the collection
>    being deleted is itself a member of that other collection.
> 
>    For example, suppose /a/b/.../x identifies a collection C, 
> and there
>    is a second binding to C in a collection that is not a member of
>    /a/b, then "DELETE /a/b" MUST NOT delete the internal member
>    named "y" from C.
> 
> And instead of saying:
> 
>    "MOVE SHOULD be REBIND if REBIND is supported"
> 
> we should say something like:
> 
>    "When MOVE is applied to a resource, the other bindings
>     to that resource MUST be unaffected, and if the
>     resource being moved is a collection, the bindings to any
>     members of that collection MUST be unaffected.
>     Also, if MOVE is used with Overwrite:T to delete an
>     existing resource, the constraints specified for DELETE apply."
> 
> ------------------
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:40 AM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems
> 
> 
> This is equivalent to the previous behavior as long as 
> clients continue
> to issue the same MOVE and DELETE requests they have in the 
> past (which
> they will for quite a while).  Therefore, I don't see how this is a
> change, or how this could possibly be acceptable if the previous
> behavior was unacceptable.
> 
> Servers must be able to support the binding specification, and to
> support ordinary WebDAV clients, and to do what the server 
> implementors
> consider to be the most appropriate and best job they can of 
> fulfilling
> the request, and to report the results.  This proposed statement does
> not meet that requirement because it forces all servers to do atomic
> MOVE/DELETE in handling requests from ordinary WebDAV clients.
> 
> Lisa
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:18 PM
> > To: 'WebDAV'
> > Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > That would be fine with me as well.
> > 
> > Just to be clear, this means the binding spec would state:
> > 
> > A server that supports BIND MUST implement MOVE/DELETE with
> > rebind/unbind semantics.  We will also define a parameter to
> > MOVE/DELETE that allows a user to explicitly request the
> > "best effort" style processing (that is OK because the user is
> > explicitly stating that trashing multiple binding semantics is
> > what they want).
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > 
> > > From: Clemm, Geoff
> > > So I'm happy to limit the constraints on MOVE and DELETE 
> to exactly
> > > what is needed to preserve the semantics of multiple bindings, but
> > > leaving them unconstrained makes the binding protocol pointless in
> > > practice.
> > 
> > On the other hand, a system that allows a "weak" MOVE if and 
> > only if there
> > aren't any multiple bindings seems very weird to me. So maybe 
> > we should
> > consider make MOVE "strong" by default, and only allow the 
> > old COPY/DELETE
> > semantics upon specific request?
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 13:11:23 UTC