Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...

Some people have been advocating a profile approach. I am simply trying to
figure out if there are a large contingent of applications for both
profiles. I have heard many applications (much more than just file system)
that would not be impacted by no strong ETags so I am convinced that group
is large, what I am looking for is what are the applications in the other
group that don't care if they get back a weak or strong ETag?

Let me a related questions to client implementers? On the phone call the
other day, knowledgeable server implementers seemed to imply that the right
solution for clients that got bag a weak ETag but needed a strong one was to
poll the server until they got back a strong one. Does any client do that?



On 11/26/05 1:04 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>> I have heard that this is wanted for applications other than a  file system.
>> Right now I was sort of looking for examples of applications that did not
>> want to use this.
> 
> I think in this case the question needs to be rephrased: what would
> these clients prefer?
> 
> 1) keeping the spec as is, meaning that there aren't any guarantees
> about this behaviour
> 
> 2) changing the spec to mandate this, leading
> 
> 2a) to some servers claiming to support this, but failing to do so
> (non-compliant implementations), or
> 
> 2b) to some servers stopping to support WebDAV altogether.
> 
> I'd also like to point out again that there is a class of resources that
> simply can't support strong ETags (for instance, WebDAV interfaces to
> XML-Infoset-based databases). Thinking of this, even the SHOULD that we
> have somewhere else in the spec is a very bad decision, and everybody
> should understand that this makes it impossible to maintain WebDAV
> interfaces to certain classes of resources (this is likely to be raised
> during IETF last call, so we better make sure the problem is understood).
> 
> Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 13:32:59 UTC