- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:53:11 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Actually, I didn't suggest how it should be done, just how it shouldn't be done (:-). An empty PROPPATCH is a possibility, but some servers do no have property modifications affect the getlastmodified time (only content modifications). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:eric.sedlar@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 5:10 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: WRITE_DAV_PROP: Summary of consensus How would you suggest that it be done--an empty PROPPATCH? -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 1:51 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: WRITE_DAV_PROP: Summary of consensus Note though that updating getlastmodified is a significantly more powerful operation than "touch". Touch just says to act as if you wrote the same content over again, i.e. the only effect it has on getlastmodified is to reset it to the "current" date. On the other hand, updating getlastmodified lets you roll backward in time, thereby potentially breaking the various caching schemes that depend on a one-way movement of the getlastmodified value. Note also that even if you intended on just "rolling time forward", a client can't really get the time "right", so it will set the time either "too early" (i.e. earlier than "current") or "too late" (i.e. sometime in the future). Either of these situations can break the caching uses of getlastmodified. In particular, suppose you are writing a "too early" time ... if someone previously wrote to the resource, which updated the getlastmodified time to a time later than your "too early" time, then you will roll back the time (potentially breaking some caching). Now suppose you write a "too late" time. Then someone does an update, which sets the getlastmodified time to a "current" which is earlier than the time you set. Again, a "time rollback" has occurred, and you can break some caching. So, although I am in favor of "touch" functionality, I am (strongly) against providing it via a writeable "getlastmodified". Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 4:27 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: Re: WRITE_DAV_PROP: Summary of consensus getlastmodified needs to be updatable to do a UNIX-like touch command. Sets the modified date on a resource so dependent relationships are processed by builders or make. "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu> To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> Sent by: cc: w3c-dist-auth-requ Subject: WRITE_DAV_PROP: Summary of consensus est@w3.org 04/16/2001 03:20 PM Let me see if I can summarize the points of consensus on this issue: Consensus: - protected (i.e. properties that MUST NOT be modifiable with PROPPATCH) creationdate getcontentlength getetag lockdiscovery supportedlock resourcetype - not protected (i.e. properties that MUST be modifiable by PROPPATCH) displayname source Still under discussion: getlastmodified getcontenttype getcontentlanguage There are two open issues: 1. Changing get* properties requires the server to perform a property lookup when processing a GET method request, and this is a performance hit for some servers. 2. It is unclear why getlastmodified needs to be writeable. Let's see if we can resolve these remaining issues over the next 1-2 days, so we can wrap this one up. - Jim
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 17:53:59 UTC