- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:14 -0800
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 12:57 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: [snip] > Yes and no. I really think that there may be separate use case that > require > separate solutions. > > A client should be able to request a MOVE operation that will fail if > the > server can't support full MOVE semantics (for instance by changing the > DAV:resource-id property). A client would then be able to reconsider, > possibly issuing a COPY/DELETE sequence instead. > > Hopefully we can agree that this type of request should be supported. > If we > do, we're left with the alternatives of making this the standard > behaviour > for the RFC2518 MOVE, or to invent some new marshalling. I'd prefer the > former, but I probably could live with the latter. > > A similar problem obviously exists with the DELETE collection atomicity > issue. Julian, We are in agreement here. Even if a server is able (or desirable) to support atomic operations in some cases, there needs to be a way for these servers to communicate to clients when an atomic operation cannot be performed so that the client can retry using the non-atomic operation (if so desired). MOVEs across unix file systems are one example, but (as Jason pointed out to my off-line), so are cross-repository MOVEs in the case of cross-repository bindings. A client has no way to know beforehand whether a cross-repository MOVE will succeed, but may want to attempt one before performing a COPY/DELETE instead. -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 15:22:17 UTC