- From: Taisuke Yamada <tai@iij.ad.jp>
- Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:25:41 +0900
- To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
>> 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. > > 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? Why is "atomic DELETE" a problem? Couldn't it be implemented just by simply moving resource out of current namespace? My understanding is that any DELETE is just a MOVE to outerspace. IMHO, you shouldn't really DELETE it before full COPY/MOVE/BIND operation completes. If you do that, then you can't rollback these operations in case of an interrupt (unless you keep DAV resource content on RDB or something). -- Taisuke Yamada <tai@iij.ad.jp> Internet Initiative Japan Inc., Technical Planning Division
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2003 04:24:22 UTC