- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:10:47 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Geoff, thanks for the update. I think this will allow us to make progress towards getting the spec finished. One comment re: > rather than "best effort" behavior. Eventually, we concluded > that any server that supported multiple bindings to > a resource should also be capable of supporting atomic > DELETE/MOVE behavior, and since no user would want non-atomic A server may want to implement *parts* of the binding spec without actually allowing the explicit creation of new bindings. In particular, supporting DAV:resource-id seems to be a very useful thing even if a server doesn't plan to support *multiple* bindings. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:55 PM > To: 'WebDAV' > Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues) > > > > A few years ago, we did discuss introducing new methods > (I prefer UNBIND/REBIND, rather than UNBIND/RENAME) so > that a client can specify when it requires atomic behavior > rather than "best effort" behavior. Eventually, we concluded > that any server that supported multiple bindings to > a resource should also be capable of supporting atomic > DELETE/MOVE behavior, and since no user would want non-atomic > behavior if they could get atomic behavior, it is simplest just > to associate the atomic behavior with the support of > the BIND operation. > > But since we have folks who insist their users want non-atomic > behavior (even when the server could support atomic behavior!), > I'm willing to go back to the UNBIND/REBIND approach. But I'd > like to at least provide guidance to implementors stating that > DELETE/MOVE *should* be implemented atomically as UNBIND/REBIND > if the server is capable of doing so. > > I've posted a revised version of the binding draft to the > binding web site. Let me know what you think. > <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-01.2.htm> > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > > From: Brian Korver > > > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:48 PM, Brian Korver wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > [snip] > > > >> Now I *do* agree that in many cases clients will actually *want* the > > >> "weak" > > >> MOVE. So maybe we should consider supporting both (either by a new > > >> method, > > >> or by adding parameters to MOVE). > > > > > > > Were you thinking that this header (say "Atomic-Operation:") would be > > used for only MOVE, or for all of the relevant operations (COPY, > > DELETE, etc.)? > > Actually, I'd really prefer not to define additional headers. > > Thinking of it, we *also* can't agree on the right DELETE semantics (see > separate discussion). So one way to address this would be to leave DELETE > and MOVE as they are, and to add > > - UNBIND (that really really really removes bindings, thus has the DELETE > semantics currently specified by the BIND draft) and > - RENAME (which would be a true MOVE that would fail when the server can't > implement it as internal namespace operation). > > This would make discovery of the new functionality much easier. >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 09:10:56 UTC