Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: "stable" href's"
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:41:57 -0500
Message-Id: <10001210441.AA26231@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: "stable" href's
From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
I've been thinking about the idea of a "fixed" binding within a collection
(a boolean property associated with a link) for caching purposes. Does it
really have to be an entire URL?
If only the binding name is "imMOVEable", and not the whole URL, does
that provide the client with much benefit? It can cache ../foo
relative names between members of that collection, but it wouldn't
provide stable references for resources outside of that collection.
(Although stable ../foo names are certainly better than nothing).
Cheers,
Geoff
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
> After thinking for a while about Neil's question about whether a
> MOVE can be applied to a revision, etc., I now believe that it would
> be worthwhile for us to define which properties contain "stable"
> URL's, i.e. URL's allocated by the server that cannot be modified
> by a client with a MOVE request.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I propose to make a pass through the protocol
> identifying those properties which I believe identify stable hrefs.
>
> The value to a client is that it can cache these names with the
> guarantee that another client cannot MOVE them somewhere else. A
> server can of course chose (or be forced) to break these bindings, but
> there's nothing we can do about that.
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>