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

Re: COPY and bindings

From: Chris Knight <Christopher.D.Knight@nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:18:58 -0700
Message-ID: <3F0DA002.90106@nasa.gov>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org

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
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 13:18:20 GMT

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