RE: MOVEs across file systems

This is equivalent to the previous behavior as long as clients continue
to issue the same MOVE and DELETE requests they have in the past (which
they will for quite a while).  Therefore, I don't see how this is a
change, or how this could possibly be acceptable if the previous
behavior was unacceptable.

Servers must be able to support the binding specification, and to
support ordinary WebDAV clients, and to do what the server implementors
consider to be the most appropriate and best job they can of fulfilling
the request, and to report the results.  This proposed statement does
not meet that requirement because it forces all servers to do atomic
MOVE/DELETE in handling requests from ordinary WebDAV clients.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems
> 
> 
> 
> That would be fine with me as well.
> 
> Just to be clear, this means the binding spec would state:
> 
> A server that supports BIND MUST implement MOVE/DELETE with
> rebind/unbind semantics.  We will also define a parameter to
> MOVE/DELETE that allows a user to explicitly request the
> "best effort" style processing (that is OK because the user is
> explicitly stating that trashing multiple binding semantics is
> what they want).
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> 
> > From: Clemm, Geoff
> > So I'm happy to limit the constraints on MOVE and DELETE to exactly
> > what is needed to preserve the semantics of multiple bindings, but
> > leaving them unconstrained makes the binding protocol pointless in
> > practice.
> 
> On the other hand, a system that allows a "weak" MOVE if and 
> only if there
> aren't any multiple bindings seems very weird to me. So maybe 
> we should
> consider make MOVE "strong" by default, and only allow the 
> old COPY/DELETE
> semantics upon specific request?
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 11:40:24 UTC