- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:31:36 -0400
- To: yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com> DELETE(N): If NR(N) = R is the NULL resource then the method will fail. If R is not the NULL resource then R is to be deleted from the resource space and all n in the output set to RN(R) are to have their NR(N) set to the NULL resource. An alternative definition of DELETE is: DELETE(N): If NR(N) = R is the NULL resource then the method will fail. If R is not the NULL resource, then NR(N) is set to NULL. A few observations: - These definitions are equivalent in the simple case where a resource has only a single name, and in many cases the latter definition is easier to implement (does not require a server to be able to compute RN(R)). - The former (i.e. "DESTROY") form of DELETE can be implemented by a client if it can discover the various names of a resource (see the advanced collection "all-bindings" property), whereas DESTROY cannot be used to implement the milder form of DELETE. - This is clearly a value judgement, but I believe it is better for downlevel clients to perform the weaker form of DELETE, since they may not be aware of all the other clients that are still using that resource under different names. If we introduce a DESTROY method, that should be only applied when specifically requested. This is especially true when versioning is introduced, since DESTROY is hardly ever the right thing to do, and certainly not by default by downlevel clients. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 17:31:38 UTC