- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:20:43 +0100
- To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:31 AM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: Brian Korver; WebDAV > Subject: RE: Operations not Atomic (was: bind draft issues) > > > > > > > > > For MOVE, I mostly mean the DELETE that occurs when the MOVE causes > > > an overwrite, although I could be convinced that ending up with 2 > > > bindings to the collection in the event of an interrupted MOVE, > > > while inadvisable, shouldn't be prohibited. > > > > That's indeed a problem. All "overwrite" operations require a DELETE > (this > > also applies to BIND (!)), so having them atomic when the target is a > > collection has the same problems has the collection DELETE itself. > > > I am curious... > > What does a system that doesn't support "atomic delete" > do in this situation if it gets stuck midway though the deallocation portion > of the DELETE? Does it leave the destination partially deleted and > abort the operation leaving it up the client to figure out what state this > was all left in? I think the answer is "yes". If the DELETE on the operation target isn't atomic, I don't think there's any way to avoid this. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2003 02:20:57 UTC