W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:08:56 +0100 (MET)
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
cc: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0512211107020.25324@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> In this case, multiple PUT without intermediate GET is OK to do -- the server 
> is prepared to make the same changes on each PUT and doesn't really need the 
> client to re-synchronize their changes.  There are other cases like some 
> CalDAV cases where the server adds an internal event identifier or alternate 
> address to the event.  I'd also bet that there are clients that already do 
> multiple PUT requests without intermediate GETs especially if the client 
> holds a lock.  But if in some cases the server needs the client to do a GET 
> between two subsequent PUTs because the changes are important to preserve, 
> how can the server accomplish that?

How about reusing 205 (Reset Content) when the server knows a subsequent 
PUT would be harmful?

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:09:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT