Re: COPY and bindings

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>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?
>
I'd definitely go for 1 (maintaining bindings with a copy) but I 
understand the server implementation implications are a bit of a 
challenge, especially for fs-backed servers. I'd strongly discourage 2 
(maybe make the behavior a SHOULD instead of a MUST.)

Moreso, I'd vote that it should be encouraged to maintain consistent 
behavior from the server (for intra-server copies) and the client (for 
inter-server copies). Certainly 3 is easier for clients to perform 
*unless you have loops*. I'm currently researching some implementation 
implications (using an RDBMS-backed server) of looping binds and it's 
not perty.

It should be possible for a client (using the DAV:resourceid property) 
to identify if it's encountered a loop...But it would have to do copies 
step-wise as a PROPFIND Depth: infinity would result in a 506 Loop 
Detected error and incomplete/no information. Actually, it'd have to do 
this anyways whether it recreated bindings or "split on copy".

8^O