Re: binds and overwriting infinite-depth copies

It probably is easy to figure out, but below, I meant:
  "is more structurally equivalent to /a"
and
  "it is reasonable for the server to do 1 or 2".

Sorry for the poor proofreading on the original response!

Cheers,
Geoff


geoff wrote on 01/17/2007 07:05:05 AM:
> 
> The spec does not give a definitive answer to this one.  You have 
> three reasonable choices: 
> 
> /b/c/p - R3 
> /b/d/p - R3 
> where R3 is a copy of R1 
> 
> /b/c/p - R3 
> /b/d/p - R3 
> where R3 is a copy of R2 
> 
> /b/c/p - R4 
> /b/d/p - R5 
> where R4 is a copy of R1 
> where R5 is a copy of R2 
> 
> I have a slight preference for the third choice, since it is 
> symmetric and is more structurally equivalent to /b. 
> But I think it is reasonable for a server to do 1 or 3, in case it 
> is expensive for it to detect this situation (so I think the spec 
> should leave this up to the server). 

> "Tim Olsen" <tolsen718@gmail.com> 
> Consider the following case.  There exist the following URLs and the
> resource's they are bound to:
> 
> /a/c/p - R1
> /a/d/p - R2
> /b/c/p - R3
> /b/d/p - R3
> 
> /b/c and /b/d are different collections.
> 
> What should happen if I do a COPY /a /b  with overwrite set to true?
> Should the new /b/c/p and /b/d/p still be the same resource?  Keep in
> mind that R3 may be a VCR.