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