- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:18:59 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED49F@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > From: Clemm, Geoff > > A problem with 200/201, is that 201 means "a new resource > was created", but a BIND never creates a new resource, but > just creates a new binding to an existing resource. That's correct with the WebDAV/BIND definition of a resource, but not with the generic (RFC2396) one -- the binding itself has a unique identifier (and thus has identity), therefore *can* be considered a resource. The binding does not have a unique identifier and does not have identity. In particular, if you delete a binding from a collection, and then create a new binding in that collection with the same segment and same bound resource, the new binding is indistinguishable from the old binding. Theoretically of course, a binding is a resource because you can imagine having a URL that identifies it. But we have not defined any such URL mapping (the mappings that a binding introduces are to the bound resources, not to the bindings themselves). > You could of course still use 200/201, but I'd be concerned that > it would be misleading. If a client has asked that BIND > overwrite any existing binding for that segment, why would it > care whether or not there was already a binding there? Well, why would it care in the case of PUT or MOVE? I'm just looking for consistency with other methods. Since BIND has different semantics from PUT or MOVE, I don't find a consistency argument sufficient reason to make this distinction. As for why it would care in the case of PUT or MOVE, I'd be interested in hearing an answer to that as well. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 16:19:35 UTC