- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:21:44 -0400
- To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 02:36:39PM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > I believe it is simpler and more desireable to deprecate the use > of allprop in all situations, not just Depth:infinity. From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org] Nah, that is a bit too extreme. There are clients that may not be able to interpret all the properties, but still needs to retrieve them. These are clients that deal with arbitrary properties as blobs. Yes, but that's what the DAV:propname does, while encouraging clients to be sensible if 5000 property names come back from the DAV:propname request. And in any case, clients are going to have to get used to the fact that the only way to get all the properties is to first use DAV:propname (both the versioning and the ACL spec explicitly allow a server to not return the versioning/acl live properties in response to a DAV:allprop request). allprop is needed to avoid a multiple-trip to fetch names then values. In this case "multiple" is "2", and given the cost of computing and transporting all properties on a resource, the cost of the extra round trip is insignificant. Let's also consider what would be needed if you're trying to do an allprop on a tree. You would need to issue a PROPFIND/propname with a Depth:1, then issue N PROPFINDs to get each set of properties from the resources. That is just *way* too burdensome. The client can just union the property names returned by PROPFIND/propname and make a single depth:1 PROPFIND request for that list (client side list union is both fast and easy). Commonly, the propname values for the members will be very similar, so the union of the property names will be not much longer than what is returned from a particular member. The alternative is a PROPFIND/allprop with Depth:1 as a single fetch for the properties of a collection and its members. Or a Depth:1 PROPFIND/propname, followed by a Depth:1 PROPFIND on the unioned list of property names. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2001 09:19:41 UTC