- From: Eriksson, Michael <Michael.Eriksson@bauer-partner.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:59:06 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa, > > The IE method of doing HEAD then PUT is a timing-dependent solution to > preventing unintended overwrites. Well, I usually just assume that Microsoft does it the wrong way. This is a good, time-saving heuristic :-) > As such, it's about as dependable as > the rhythm method in preventing unintended pregnancies. I am not familiar with that one... > The recommended way to prevent overwrite on PUT is to put the header > "If-None-Match: *" on the request. See for example > http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/. > > This may not solve your problem because it sounds like you have control > over the server but not the client. Partially true, because I could change the server side. Doing so would however bring other disadvantages. (Such as having to maintain an extra version of a third party component.) IE is over course completely out of my hands. Also, there is no guarantee that the end user actually uses IE and not e.g Cadaver. > I'm confused by your statement that > the server is "correct" in this. I would think the server ought to use a > 404 Not Found response, with or without a body containing more detail, > in response to a HEAD. See my previous response to Julian, which clarifies this statement. > I know Tomcat can be extended with a servlet to respond with a 404 to a > HEAD to a non-existent file (with or without a body). Xythos WebFile > Server does this for example. Tomcat per se handles non-existant files in the usual maner. The problem is in the error pages, which are a part of the servlet specification. (S. my email to Julian again.) Michael
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:59:10 UTC