- From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:51:17 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
On 25.11.2003, at 15:02, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > I'm not sure what the benefit would be of this additional error > code for MOVE. If the client wants to try COPY/DELETE as an > alternative to MOVE, then it should do so. I don't see that > the clients decision to do so would be affected by a special > error code here. [maybe we got the method wrong, of course COPY suffers the same issue! the alternative to MOVE is GET/PUT/DELETE, not COPY/DELETE] Well, MOVE is usually a cheap operation on the server and on the network while PUT is expensive on the network. So I would assume (without having thought through everything, I have to admit), that a code which signals the client why it couldn't perform the operation would be quite useful (something like out-of-the-namespace-I-process). With the Forbidden code we do not know whether the request was rejected because of access restrictions or just because it is located on a different server, right? Note that I'm assuming that a server is usually "dumb" and will not try to act as a proxy with regards to the other namespace (if it does we do have the 502 code to detect errors, if I remember right). Doesn't make sense? regards, Helge -- I'm describing in a paragraph what took 14 hours to figure out. You may want to sniff glue for a while, then reread this when you get out of rehab. [aLa]
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 09:51:34 UTC