- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:59:45 -0500
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
The check for "is this the last binding" is not sufficient, because the multiple binding might be to a parent of the resource. In the example I gave below, the "wife" binding might be the only binding to the wife resource, but deleting it is a problem because there is another binding to JEFF. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 2:35 AM To: Clemm, Geoff; 'WebDAV' Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues) > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:09 AM > To: 'WebDAV' > Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues) > > > > 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. Geoff, I don't think this issue exists if a server does UNBIND when removing one of multiple bindings and non-atomic-DELETE when removing the last binding (see [1]). [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0263.html> -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 14:59:53 UTC