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

Re (2): Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

From: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:25:56 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200303081825.h28IPuCZ011070@post.webmailer.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de

I don't have time to follow the discussion in detail at the moment
but this post provokes a comment.
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:
>    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
>    information).
>    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.
Goeff, I don't think your scenario is valid for our discussion.
If no lock had existed then all information would have been deleted.
So for the folks that still are his friends JEFF/* would be "completely" trashed.
Would have this have been a better or worse situation for them ?
IMHO this usecase doesn't say anything about the "badness" of
"best effort deletion".
Either jeff gives jim and henry the rights to delete JEFF/* even if it's shared, or
he doesn't allow it. It's jeffs decision.

Cheers, Edgar

edgar@edgarschwarz.de                  "http://www.edgarschwarz.de"
"http://www.edgar-schwarz.de/forum/oberon"    Running Active Oberon
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 13:26:01 UTC

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