- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:55:10 -0800
- To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, JSlein@crt.xerox.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
What really scares me is a scenario where I have a directory filled with references but I'm using an RFC 2518 client. If I copy the directory I will go from a directory that took up a few kilobytes (just to record the references) to one of any random and potentially huge size. The source directory ate 30Kb and the destination eats up 6 Gig. I would call that surprising. I would also invoke precedent here. In every system I have ever heard of that supports references (read: links) a COPY always copies the link not the destination. I would be very hesitant to go against three decades of accumulated experience without a good reason. Hence I believe that the default action should be no-passthrough on COPY. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 9:52 AM > To: JSlein@crt.xerox.com > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Delete, Move, and Copy for References (Yaron's Issue #9) > > > > From: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com> > > <...> > > I agree with everything Judy said up to here, but cut it out > for brevity. > > I don't quite get Geoff's comment that "The client needs > to be warned that > there really will *not* be a copy made," since I thought > the position we > were both supporting is that there *will* really be a copy > made, both for > direct references and for redirect references. > > (This was a comment on invoking a COPY on a redirect reference.) > > For a redirect reference COPY, you could either return the > 302 and not do > anything (letting the client decide whether to do a "no-passthrough > copy" or copy the target explicitly), or you could return the 302 > *and* actually do a "no-passthrough copy. > > I slightly prefer the former (since normally a "302" means that the > operation did not happen, right?), but either one is fine with me. > > Cheers, > Geoff > >
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 14:55:23 UTC