RE: A proposal for Advanced Collection binding semantics, UNBIND before BIND

> > or to modify an existing binding (by associating
> > it with a different resource).

> But I don't like this, since it's essentially an atomic UNBIND/BIND
> pair. My concern is whether such an operation is really needed, and
> whether this means that access control for BIND can be disentangled
> from access control for UNBIND.  It seems like a bad separation of
> concerns.

I really don't have a constructive comment here.  Just a bit of noise to add.
That is, if one does an UNBIND followed by a BIND and the BIND fails (can it
fail?) and the UNBIND removed the last binding to a resource, one will have to
resort to versioning support to restore the binding.

I do see Jim's point too.

And later Geoff mentioned difference between this and PROPFIND replacing a value
of a property.  There is a difference.  PROPFIND deals with the access control
of a single resource or property.  The BIND behavior in question deals with two
resources I think.

I say go with Geoff's proposal and see how messy it gets.  If we find we are
going to get entangled in access control issues (although probably far fewer
than COPY) we can punt.

J.

Received on Sunday, 2 May 1999 18:42:10 UTC