- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:55:11 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Brian Korver'" <briank@xythos.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:09 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Brian Korver'; 'WebDAV' > Subject: RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues) > > > > Of course does RFC2518 have a notion of bindings. What it > > doesn't have is a > > method to *create* multiple bindings, and the live properties > > to inspect > > them. > > > > Bindings always have been there implicitly. All the BIND spec > > adds is the > > machinery to create them, and to discover some more > > information about them. > > > > You can say that RFC2518 supports bindings, but only if you cover one RFC2518 extends HTTP, and HTTP allows multiple URLs to be mapped to the same resource. > eye when you look at it. RFC2518 contains definitions for operations > that apply to resources and operations that apply to URLs. RFC2518 is > in fact very ambiguous on this kind of thing, without a fixed model of > how implementors must represent everything under the covers. A lot of Well, yes. The RFCs should describe server behaviour, not their internals. > the text is descriptive. Correct. > For example, the definition of DELETE for a non-collection talks as if > it applies to a binding: > > "If the DELETE method is issued to a non-collection resource whose URIs > are an internal member of one or more collections, then during DELETE > processing a server MUST remove any URI for the resource identified by > the Request-URI from collections which contain it as a member." > > However, the definition of DELETE for a collection talks as if it > applies to a set of underlying resources: > > "DELETE instructs that the collection specified in the Request-URI and > all resources identified by its internal member URIs are to be deleted. > " > > Locks apply more to URLs than to resources, yet property operations > apply more to resources than to URLs, and neither locks nor properties > are 100% pure. Locks apply both to resources and URLs (as clarified by GULP), and always did. Property operations *always* apply to resources, and there really is no exception to that rule. > Really, what this means is that implementors of several kinds of systems > can support RFC2518 simply by supporting a consistent behavior. For > example, systems that model URLs as links to underlying resources, as > well as systems that model URLs as properties of resources. There may be > other kinds too. The URL can only be a property of a resource if the system explicitly restricts itself to only single bindings. You can't have both multiple bindings, and also treat the URL as a property of the resource at the same time. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 09:55:44 UTC