- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:22:54 -0700
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Justin Chapweske <justin@chapweske.com>
>> In any case, I think it is important that the specification >> recommend a delta format that can meet the needs of both diff/patch >> type usage as well as remote random-access I/O patterns. > > I am not sure I agree. Would it be better to provide a different > method for remote random-access I/O patterns? Random I/Os seem to have > different enough priorities and possibly different set of essential > operations to justify the increased complexity of morphing two content > modification methods together. > I also have my doubts about random-access I/O support. The HTTP/WebDAV model is to do whole-resource operations, and since PATCH is all in one method that still qualifies. With WebDAV support, a client would be advised to LOCK the resource and GET it, perform random-access I/O on the local copy, then PUT/PATCH and UNLOCK the file. Without WebDAV support, client should do the same but using ETags rather than locks. Lisa
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 19:23:27 UTC