- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:29:55 -0800
- To: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>, "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> Personally, I'm going to guess they didn't pipeline requests, so a batch > mechanism was a must to get around deficiencies in their protocol stack. There's potentially a little more to it than that. (1) Imagine a client selects a bunch of resources and drags to move them all to a different folder. A batch MOVE operation can do those in one transaction, so that the whole request fails if not all can be moved. This becomes rather more important if the client is actually using an API (MSDAIPP??) that offers large-scope operations, yet how can it guarantee that operation will work or won't work if it can only send it piecemeal to the server? (2) See Yaron's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0303.html) about why pipelining doesn't always work (can't always be used even when available). I don't know to what extent pipelining is realistically unavailable/unworkable. That said, it's still not clear batch methods are so necessary they'd preempt other work we've got to do. Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 00:31:49 UTC