- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:44:56 -0400
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <OFA5D85D9E.344E06FA-ON85256BE5.0054A2BB@us.ibm.com>
> I agree that 2 and 3 are sufficiently important use cases > to support the DAV:source protocol element. Noted. > I think one > can make a reasonable case that 4 is also handled by > DAV:source (i.e. it is a reasonable extension of 3). Four. That's the items that says we need a way to know what URI to delete to remove the mapping of this resource at this URI. I think that would require a bit more discussion... but we can do that now... If a resource has multiple sources listed, we'd need to designate which one is the one that causes the deletion at this URI. That's why I suggested that a single resource be able to have multiple roles. I was envisioning a DELETE role... among others. Is this reasonable? There is also the case of a dynamic resourse that is mapped to at URI via some manual/explicit process. An example would be some servlet engines I've seen. There is a registry that says that a certain class handles requests at a certain URL. There must be other examples. I assume in these servers, it's an unmapping process that's really what is wanted.... not necessarily the destruction of the implementation of the resource at that URI. In this case, the resource to delete might vary. 1) The URI itself might be deletable. 2) The server might create a virutual resource just for the purpose of giving the clieting something to delete to cause the unmapping. 3) The server might have some other process for unmapping the resource and not support the DELETE method to do the unmapping of that resource. Is all of the a reasonable analysis? If so, do we allow case (3)? If so, what do we suggest the server should do to denote behavior (3)? J.
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 11:52:29 UTC