W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Should REBIND preserve locks, other live properties

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:31:13 +0100
Message-ID: <405F4D11.7060608@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> So if REBIND is the same as MOVE in all cases, why are we defining it?

It isn't 

"The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from one collection, 
and adds a binding to that resource into another collection. It is 
effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request."

> I reject the argument that this behavior is needed for REBIND as well  
> as MOVE for client convenience.  MOVE would remain as defined for  
> clients that want the convenience of keeping URL/Lock-token pairs  
> unchanged.  A new method, like RENAME, could provide clients a  
> completely optional method with different convenience tradeoffs: the  
> convenience of not having to issue a new LOCK request if further  
> resource changes are required, etc.  That's what I thought the original  
> intent of REBIND was.

Well, it isn't. If you feel that there should be a method allowing 
namespace manipulation while maintaining locks, you're free to work on 
it (I may even be interested on supporting it, once it's defined).

But this wasn't on the requirements list for BIND, and IMHO nobody has 
asked for it recently, so it doesn't belong into BIND. It's a completely 
separate issue.

Regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 15:32:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:31 UTC