- From: Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange) <lisal@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:48:18 -0700
- To: "'Brian Lloyd'" <Brian@digicool.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Cc: "'gstein@lyra.org'" <gstein@lyra.org>
So what does multi-status mean?? Ideally there would be a way for the client to specify atomicity, but we don't have that yet. Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Lloyd [mailto:Brian@digicool.com] > Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 1:57 PM > To: Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange); 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' > Cc: 'gstein@lyra.org' > Subject: RE: Must PROPPATCH operation be atomic... > > > > I know this is an old conversation, but the email got buried in my > > mailbox... > > > > Some PROPPATCH results can fail and others can succeed, so > > this is why we > > have multi-valued responses. Clients can easily see what happened. > > Rollback is difficult for servers to implement. Are there > any server > > implementations that do already implement this as atomic or > > with rollback? > > I'm not aware of any. I see rollback as a more advanced > > feature, that we > > can figure out how to do later on. > > > > Lisa > > Zope (web application server) implements atomic PROPPATCH > w/rollback. We lucked out in this respect, as Zope is > based on a transactional object database which made this > relatively painless. > > While implementing it on a non-transactional server is harder, > it still (IMHO) seems to be a requirement. Clients that respect > the rfc will have an expectation that a failure means no changes > were made. If this is not the case, you might have any number > of caching and resource integrity problems, based on mismatched > expectations on the part of the client and server... > > > Brian Lloyd brian@digicool.com > Software Engineer 540.371.6909 > Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com >
Received on Friday, 16 April 1999 16:48:54 UTC