- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:05:24 +0200
- To: "Pill, Juergen" <Juergen.Pill@softwareag.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Jürgen, I think one should try to achieve the same goal while staying inside the boundaries of HTTP. For instance, one could define a specific "transaction resource", and use POST to append specific method invocations to it. You might also want to present your use case on the REST-discuss mailing list... Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pill, Juergen > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:54 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; Pill, Juergen; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions > > > > Hello Julian, > > I agree, TA adds a new aspect and quality to http (or WebDAV) and a new > useful functionality, IMO. If it would go beyond the scope or > philosophy of > Http (or webdav) there is no need to get a standard on the way. > > The only issue I could see, is - if many people feel the requirement for > this functionality too - that we get a series of WebDAV TA > implementations, > which are not interoperable any more. > > Best regards, > > Juergen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 16.34 PM > To: Pill, Juergen; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions > > Jürgen, > > I think the main issue isn't that people aren't interested -- > it's more that > they (well, I) think that it's an extremely bad idea that doesn't adher to > the HTTP model. > > In particular, it would make the meaning of an HTTP method > invocation depend > on previous method calls. That makes it hard or impossible for > intermediaries to work with these messages. > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pill, Juergen > > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:17 PM > > To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' > > Subject: RE: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I did not receive a lot of feed-back on the TA "proposal" (and the > > statements were both positive and negative). > > > > Would you agree on the statement, the WebDAV group would be > currently not > > interested in standardizing TA methods? > > > > As we would need this extension for the API implementation, our > > option would > > be to implement a proprietary WebDAV TA extension available on > our server > > only. > > > > If the interest on this topic would raise again - possibly at a > > later time - > > we would be happy to share our experience with you. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Juergen Pill > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pill, Juergen [mailto:Juergen.Pill@softwareag.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12.24 PM > > To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' > > Subject: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions > > > > > > Hello, > > > > The current WebDAV specifications deal with a transactional support on a > > method base only. Either a single WebDAV method is completely and > > successfully executed, or the method is not executed at all (e.g. a > > PropPatch command will either modify all requested properties or none of > > them). A transactional support spanning multiple WebDAV methods > > is currently > > not specified. > > Multi user requirements are either handled in separate workspaces > > (Delta-V) > > or via the Lock method. > > During our discussion on the JSR 170 (Content Management API) > > implementation > > on top of WebDAV, we believe that we require longer > transactions spanning > > multiple separate WebDAV methods. (This issue was already partially > > discussed in the Batch method thread). Do you also fell the > > need/requirement > > to get a standard on the way, concerning a transactional WebDAV protocol > > extension? > > > > A possible use case would be: > > An author wants to modify an html page. To successfully do so, > he will PUT > > the updated html page back, PROPPATCH and UNLOCK it, DELETE all bitmap > > files, which are not references any more, and PUT (create) the newly > > referenced bitmaps files. If he wants to ensure, that either all > > his changes > > do apply (or none of them) he would surround those method call with an > > TA-BEGIN and a TA-COMMIT method call. If the author would be an > API (e.g. > > JSR 170) exposing the TA functionality to an application, we > believe this > > feature to be mandatory. > > > > A possible (starting) specification could be: > > WebDAV defines 3 additional methods: TA-BEGIN, TA-COMMIT and > TA-ABORT. The > > TA-BEGIN method will return a TA token (e.g. via an XML response > > body). This > > TA token will be send to the following WebDAV methods, which are part of > > this transaction (e.g. via an additional header). The TA-COMMIT > > or TA-ABORT > > method will either commit or abort the transaction and invalidate the TA > > token. > > If and when an open TA, which is not used any more, is aborted, could be > > controlled similar to the lock method timeout header. > > All WebDAV methods, which either do not posses a TA token, or posses an > > invalid token are handled as today (the method is executed > within its own > > TA), this would ensure upward compatibility. > > This extension would be optional, if a server supports the TA > methods, it > > will state this in the OPTIONS request (similar to Delta-V). > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Best regards > > Juergen Pill > > >
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 11:06:00 UTC