- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:46:33 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2973BD4@SUS-MA1IT01>
I'm still looking for a compelling reason to do anything about this at all. So far, the only argument is for "consistency". Since these are different methods with different semantics, I find "consistency" arguments less compelling than simplicity arguments (i.e. it simpler to just always return 200 if there are no errors). So what is the compelling use case for a client knowing whether the new binding is replacing an old binding or not? Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:06 AM To: Stefan Eissing Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: BIND method response codes, new header? Or.... how about.... (get your tomatoes ready...) A new header, whereby the client can submit assertions that it wants the server to test. These tests need not prevent an operation from occuring, but they can inform the user of the situation just before (or after) the operation occured. It could test for things like etags and locks. And in this case it could test if a resource existed. This header would not be bind specific. And it need not go in the spec now. But if we are anticipating something like this, we wouldn't need to spend time defining a new status code now or even debating which one to use. J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 11:47:05 UTC