RE: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response cod e

Yes, that was what I meant ... even though I know
that COPY is applied to the object that is not being changed, and
has a header identifying the object that is being changed,
my subconscious keeps wanting it to be the other way (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:00 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV
Subject: RE: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response
cod e


Geoff,

I think it sould be the other way around:

- when the source was locked, just report 423 on the source,

- when the source wasn't copied because it's destination was locked, report
409 for the source and throw in a pointer to the locked destination.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: RE: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response
> cod e
>
>
> I'd just do:
> ...
> <D:response>
>    <D:href>/bla/...</D:href>
>    <D:status>HTTP/1.1 409 CONFLICT</D:status>
>    <D:responsedescription>
>      <D:error>
>         <D:locked-source>
>           <D:href>/other/...</D:href>
>         </D:locked-source>
>      </D:error>
>    </D:responsedescription>
> </D:response>
>
> This is assuming the MOVE failed because the source was locked.
> If it failed because the destination was locked, then it would
> just be:
>
> ...
> <D:response>
>    <D:href>/bla/...</D:href>
>    <D:status>HTTP/1.1 423 LOCKED</D:status>
> </D:response>
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:06 AM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response
> cod e
>
>
>
> Am Montag den, 22. April 2002, um 02:40, schrieb Clemm, Geoff:
>
> >    From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> >
> [...]
> >    - MAY contain response elements for targets that caused the failure.
> >
> > That would be OK with me but I'd prefer to nest the information
> > about targets that caused the failure in the response element for the
> > source resource that wasn't moved/copied/deleted.  This is a change
> > from RFC 2518, but I think it is warranted.
> >
> >    It might be woth thinking to also add some kind of linkage
> > between the
> > two
> >    response elements.
> >
> > I agree.  That is the purpose for nesting the information about the
> > targets that caused the failure in the response for the target that
> > was not copied.
>
> So, as usual I propose a format which will make everyone scream and
> come up with a much better one.
>
> ...
> <D:response>
>    <D:href>/bla/...</D:href>
>    <D:status>HTTP/1.1 409 CONFLICT</D:status>
>    <D:cause>
>      <D:href>/other/...</D:href>
>      <D:status>HTTP/1.1 423 LOCKED</D:status>
>    </D:cause>
> </D:response>
>
> //Stefan
>

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 09:15:31 UTC