RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:01 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253
>
>
>    From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>    > From: Clemm, Geoff
>    >
>    > Note: This precondition actually violates the requirement
>    > earlier in the text that a server support cyclic bindings.
>    I wasn't aware off that being a requirement. I see why a server
>    that *does* support cyclic bindings need to signal them upon depth
>    infinity operations (-> 506), but why would you want to require
>    support for their creation?
>    Actually, I'm tempted to require servers to detect cyclic bindings
>    upon creation and to reject those requests. What's the use case for
>    cyclic bindings?
> If you are using bindings to capture some relationship, and that
> relationship is cyclic, then you can't capture that relationship
> if you are not allowed to create cyclic bindings.

I'd still feel better if you could give a simple example...

>    > But probably a server should be allowed to reject cyclic
>    > bindings, so I'm happy to add this pre-condition (and remove
>    > the current requirement), if nobody objects.
>    BTW: this precondition applies to all namespace-manipulating
>    operations (a MOVE of a collection may fail for the same reason).
> Assuming that the server does not allow you to "move" the root
> (which no server does), how do you create a cycle with a move
> operation?

Let /a and /b/c bind to the same collection C. Move /b to /a/b. Result is
that both /a and /a/b/c bind to the same collection C.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Sunday, 27 October 2002 07:46:47 UTC