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


From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:51:17 +0100
Message-Id: <D30AF431-1F56-11D8-9250-000393C29C2A@opengroupware.org>
Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

On 25.11.2003, at 15:02, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> I'm not sure what the benefit would be of this additional error
> code for MOVE.  If the client wants to try COPY/DELETE as an
> alternative to MOVE, then it should do so.  I don't see that
> the clients decision to do so would be affected by a special
> error code here.

[maybe we got the method wrong, of course COPY suffers the same issue! 
the alternative to MOVE is GET/PUT/DELETE, not COPY/DELETE]

Well, MOVE is usually a cheap operation on the server and on the 
network while PUT is expensive on the network. So I would assume 
(without having thought through everything, I have to admit), that a 
code which signals the client why it couldn't perform the operation 
would be quite useful (something like out-of-the-namespace-I-process).
With the Forbidden code we do not know whether the request was rejected 
because of access restrictions or just because it is located on a 
different server, right?

Note that I'm assuming that a server is usually "dumb" and will not try 
to act as a proxy with regards to the other namespace (if it does we do 
have the 502 code to detect errors, if I remember right).

Doesn't make sense?

I'm describing in a paragraph what took 14 hours to figure out. You may 
want to sniff glue for a while, then reread this when you get out of 
rehab. [aLa]
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 09:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC