- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:58:18 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Of course that doesn't require the ability to *submit* drafts, as long as the current edits are published on the BIND home page (as they usually are) :-) -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:11 PM > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'WebDAV' > Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems > > > > This is pretty good! I look forward to seeing it in context of the > draft, when we can submit drafts again of course. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:10 AM > > To: 'WebDAV' > > Subject: RE: MOVEs across file systems > > > > > > > > Yeah, I didn't think that Julian's suggestion would be popular (:-). > > > > So I think realistically, we should focus on constraining the > > behavior of MOVE/DELETE in the presence of multiple bindings > > to the same resource, so that they don't violate the basic > > requirements of multiple bindings. > > > > The current form of that proposal is: > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > Instead of saying: > > > > "DELETE SHOULD be UNBIND if UNBIND is supported" > > > > we should say something like: > > > > "When DELETE is applied to a collection, it MUST NOT modify the > > membership of another collection, except when the collection > > being deleted is itself a member of that other collection. > > > > For example, suppose /a/b/.../x identifies a collection C, > > and there > > is a second binding to C in a collection that is not a member of > > /a/b, then "DELETE /a/b" MUST NOT delete the internal member > > named "y" from C. > > > > And instead of saying: > > > > "MOVE SHOULD be REBIND if REBIND is supported" > > > > we should say something like: > > > > "When MOVE is applied to a resource, the other bindings > > to that resource MUST be unaffected, and if the > > resource being moved is a collection, the bindings to any > > members of that collection MUST be unaffected. > > Also, if MOVE is used with Overwrite:T to delete an > > existing resource, the constraints specified for DELETE apply." > > > > ------------------ > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:40 AM > > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'WebDAV' > > Subject: 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 13:58:29 UTC