W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Comments on the "new" 2518

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:59:39 -0800
Message-Id: <CA78DAC2-49A0-433E-A9B7-D72924B34385@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I read 'T' for 'F' when I initially read John's email, so I guess  
that would require clients to change their code to get atomicity.   
John would a solution that required clients to change their code to  
require atomicity be acceptable?


On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> I am on the fence for how to go with this issue,  but I do note  
>> that your solution doesn't solve John's problem.  There are many  
>> existing, deployed clients who already implement MOVE and John  
>> wants WFS to behave appropriately for them without forcing  
>> widespread client (in some cases, operating system) upgrade.
> Sorry?
> John asked for an extension that allows clients to state that MOVE  
> should be atomic (the default staying non-atomic for backwards  
> compatibility).
> Geoff pointed out that that extension already exists and is called  
> Clients that would want to take advantage of it would need to be  
> upgraded in both cases. And, as a matter of fact, they would still  
> need to be able to handle servers with non-atomic MOVE  
> implementations.
> What am I missing?
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 01:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:35 UTC