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

RE: MOVEs across file systems

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:58:18 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEELFGLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Of course that doesn't require the ability to *submit* drafts, as long as
the current edits are published on the BIND home page (as they usually are)
:-)

--
<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 Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:11 PM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: 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 13:58:29 GMT

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