- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:39:48 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > 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