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

COPY and bindings II

From: Nevermann, Dr., Peter <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:57:46 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210605C48010@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
A while ago I asked, whether - assuming no resource at destination to
overwrite - COPY should preserve bindings, i.e. should COPY yield 1) or 2)
(see below):

1)
      |u1     --COPY-->    |u2
      C                    C'  
    a/  \b               a/  \b 
    C1  C2               Ca  Cb 
    x\  /y              x|    |y
      R                  Rx  Ry

2)
      |u1     --COPY-->    |u2    
      C                    C'  
    a/  \b               a/  \b 
    C1  C2               Ca  Cb 
    x\  /y               x\  /y
      R                    R'

Most of you voted for 2).

Now, assuming there *were* resources at destination to overwrite - take
diagram 1) for visualization, where C', Ca, Cb, Rx, Ry all existed
beforehand - I assume that COPY u1->u2 would result in Rx and Ry both being
updated with content + dead-properties from R.

And, again using diagram 1) and assuming all shown resources existed
beforehand, what happens if we do the COPY the other way round, i.e. COPY
u2->u1? The Binding spec states in section 2.3, last paragraph:
"If a COPY causes one or more existing resources to be updated, the bindings
to those resources MUST be unaffected by the COPY."
Is it then correct, that while copying the C'-tree over the C-tree, resource
R is first updated by Rx and then again by Ry (or the other way round)? That
is, one of Rx or Ry "wins" in updating R? Hm???

Regards,
Peter
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 08:58:15 GMT

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