- From: Michael Hermann <michael.hermann@nuvation.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:08:36 -0800
- To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3D6283E3E734D411A0AB00104BC7C4A802879A@IGUANA>
unsubscribe (sorry if this goes to the list, I forgot to record the admin address) > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:00 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: [RFC2518 Issue] PROPFIND 'allprop' usage > > > > > I have to agree with Shaun that providing an unbounded > implementation of > 'PROPFIND allprops depth infinity' would be brain dead. > Similarly, moving > the goal posts to say that allprops no longer returns all the > properties > would be 'unfavourable' to existing clients and servers. > > The only tenable position is to allow the server to refuse > the request, > either in its entirety (no all props and/or no depth infinity) or by > allowing it to report partial results (a response status code that > indicates not all properties were returned, and/or collection > members were > not traversed) for a resource. > > IMHO, attempting to synchronize thousands of files with a > single call to > the server is not a fantastic idea. > > Regards, > > Tim > > > Hartmut Warncke <hwarncke@Adobe.COM> on 2000-11-22 04:58:26 PM > > Please respond to Hartmut Warncke <hwarncke@Adobe.COM> > > To: "Hall, Shaun" <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com>, WebDAV WG > <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> > cc: > Subject: Re: [RFC2518 Issue] PROPFIND 'allprop' usage > > > > > > > > The implications of PROPFIND with an infinite depth affect both the > server > > and/or the client. Supposing you have a large WebDAV > enabled repository. > The > > PROPFIND request (a few hundred bytes) could potentially > mean that (tens > of) > > GBs of data is to be returned. Even if the server could > generate such a > > large response (which is a feat in its own right), it will load the > network, > > and what will happen when the client receives it? Pity the poor user > sitting > > there for a long time (hours?), only to be told "timed out" > or "out of > > memory" or something similar. > > Yes, of course, I completely understand your point of view. > But as a matter > of > fact we like this "depth infinity" feature very much because > we can use it > in a > very efficient way in some situations and therefore we are > struggleing so > hard > for keeping that feature. > > > Changing the specification could break existing products, > which is a bad > > thing. Backwards compatibilty should be maintained. > > Good to hear that. But I am not quite sure how you will do > that because if > a > server has the possibility to refuse a depth infinity request > GoLive 5 will > not > be able to handle that situation (synchronization of client and server > content > will not work anymore). > > > We think the way forward for the WebDAV specification is to > allow servers > > the ability to refuse such requests and inform the client. > A mechanism > > should be defined for the client to understand this. If the client > received > > a response which basically stated that the server was > refusing to service > an > > infinite depth request, it could issue multiple requests > with a Depth:1. > > If you have to synchronize a very large site with thousands of files, > replacing > depth infinity requests by depth 1 requests would be a huge > performance > disaster > for us. > > Best, Hartmut > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 15:08:57 UTC