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

Re: COPY and bindings

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:20:25 -0400
To: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>
Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC43277AB.CB935ACE-ON85256D5F.005911D7-85256D5F.0059C926@us.ibm.com>

Good question.  I would argue that 1 copy is the more desireable
behavior, but 2 copies will be easier for many servers to implement
(for example, that is what "cp -r" does on Unix).

So my preferences would be (from high to low):
1- require 1 copy
2- leave it up to the server
3- require 2 copies.

Any votes?

Cheers,
Geoff


Peter wrote on 07/10/2003 04:13:45 AM:

> Suppose the following: 
> - a resource R 
> - a collection C1 with a binding x to R 
> - a collection C2 with a binding y to R 
> - a collection C mapped to URI-1 containing C1 and C2 
> i.e.: 
>     C 
>    / \ 
>   C1 C2 
>    \ / 
>     R 
> Now I issue a COPY on URI-1 with destination URI-2 and depth infinity. 
> How many copies do I get for R, one or two? 
> i.e.: 
>     C' 
>    / \ 
>  C1' C2' 
>    \ / 
>     R' 
> or 
>     C' 
>    / \ 
>  C1' C2' 
>   |   | 
>   R'  R" 
> ?? 
> I suspect that 2 copies is correct ... or at least, the server is 
> allowed to duplicate R at destination. 
> Thanks, 
> Peter 
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:26:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT