Re: Operations not Atomic (was: bind draft issues)

>> 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