W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:08:31 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2021C5EBA@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

   From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]

   Other than loops, what are the problems unique to multiple
   bindings and partial MOVE?

One example was posted in the message below:

   From:	Clemm, Geoff [gclemm@Rational.Com]
   Sent:	Monday, March 03, 2003 6:34 PM
   Subject:	RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

   because it can cause a DELETE in one collection to cause a change
   in another collection, and this kind of "deletion side effect"
   was something we explicitly were trying to avoid.  For example,
   suppose /henry/has-friend/jeff and /jim/has-friend/jeff
   were bindings to the same collection, JEFF, and JEFF has a binding
   named "wife" to a resource, MARI.  Now suppose henry gets mad
   at jeff, and issues a "DELETE /henry/has-friend/jeff" request.
   But suppose at that moment someone else has a Depth:0 lock
   on the /henry/has-friend collection.  The result of a "best effort"
   deletion is the removal of the "wife" binding from JEFF.  That
   may be OK if you were just updating the information accessible
   from /henry (he isn't JEFF's friend anymore, and he's happy to
   purge as much information about JEFF as he can), but with multiple
   bindings, "best effort" deletion has now trashed the JEFF object
   in all the other contexts in which it is still visible (and the
   folks that still are his friends are still interested in that

   So we're not saying that "best effort deletion" is always a bad thing,
   but we are saying that "best effort deletion" is a bad thing when
   you care about multiple bindings to the same resource.
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 21:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:28 UTC