W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: new webdav sync draft

From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:34:33 +0100
Cc: caldav@ietf.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, vcarddav@ietf.org
Message-Id: <FC4CE9C0-0F2C-4F4A-8F22-DAE3F1AA6B4D@opengroupware.org>
To: Arnaud Quillaud <Arnaud.Quillaud@Sun.COM>
Hi,

Arnaud asked me on my opinion on the following ...

On 19.11.2009, at 18:20, Arnaud Quillaud wrote:
> I have just submitted a new version of the webdav sync draft (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-daboo-webdav-sync-02.txt ).

=>
>    2.  Do clients really need to be notified that a resource was created
>        versus modified ?  They should be able to figure that out by
>        looking at the state of their current cache.  If this information
>        is not necessary, the response would not need to contain a DAV:
>        status along with the DAV:propstat.  This would allow the use of
>        a regular multistatus (simply extended with a sync-token
>        element).

Its not crucial, but helpful. If I don't know that a resource is new, I obviously have to scan the cache to check for that. Which is significantly more expensive than a simple INSERT (status = 'N', url=abc) ...
Given that WebDAV sync is supposed to improve sync with large folders, the 'check' time consumption becomes more relevant too ...

The question is whether I would do the scan anyways, just to be sure there are no DUPs. Probably! :-) [either me, or a database unique constraint doing effectively the same thing]

So I guess either way is fine with me with a slight preference towards having a separate 'created'. If that would be significantly more difficult for servers, lets drop it, if not, lets preserve it.

Greets,
  Helge
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 21:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 21:35:12 GMT