- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:28:14 +0200
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:09 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > > > Well, it really all depends on how compelling the use cases are > that require > ETag support. It's ok to make servers do things that may be hard for some > implementations if it delivers solid benefits for the client. I > heard some > pretty solid use cases at the Interop event. Hard yes, impossible no. If a server that complies to RFC2518 doesn't comply to RFC2518bis, then we've broken the IETF publication process, haven't we? > In your filesystem example, as long as all of the access to the > files can be > intercepted by the server software somehow, keeping around an > ETag is not a > big problem as you can bump up a sequence number on each write. A simple Incrementing sequence numbers isn't the problem. Persisting them may be. > filesystem based server may also have problems with supporting UUIDs as > well. UUIDs for what? Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 14:28:47 UTC