- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:15:29 +0100
- To: John Baumgarten <jbaumgarten@apple.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
John Baumgarten wrote: > > Julian- > > The advantages of "Namespace-reservation" (NR) resources: > > 1. NRs do not have the "strange" behavior of existing for some methods, > but not for others. > > 2. Legacy clients that use lock-nulls in the most common way should > still work. > > 3. Conversely, the server is more forgiving for less robust or less > protocol-savvy clients that unintentionally lock non-existent resources > that they intend to use as collections. > > 4. The above points are achieved without further complicating COPY or > MOVE operations, which have been highly optimized for performance in our > environment. With 1, 2 and I agree (but that also applies to simply creating empty, locked resources with no special behaviour). 3) is interesting; I'm not aware of any clients doing this (at least our server product doesn't seem to have any clients suffering from it). So to me this sounds like putting (still) additional complexity into the server implementation that's unneeded (but as usual, your mileage my vary). Of course things look different if indeed you have to support clients that rely on 3). If you do, it would be interesting to the WG to learn which clients these are, because they will break with a pure RFC2518bis as well... Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 19:16:07 UTC