W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Atomic MOVE vs BIND spec, was: Comments on the "new" 2518

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 13:42:24 +0200
Message-ID: <446474A0.6090709@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>, 'Geoffrey M Clemm' <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, 'Kevin Wiggen' <kwiggen@xythos.com>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> Hoping I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, but instead offer 
> something a little different.
> Would it help everybody if the requirement wasn't made of servers at 
> all?  If the real purpose of the requirement on server behavior is to 
> set expectations for clients, well we can do that better with direct 
> requirements of clients:
>   "Clients MUST be prepared to handle complete or partial failure of a 
> MOVE request.  Partial failure could mean that some files remain at the 
> source while some are at the destination, or even that some files are 
> duplicated in both places.  Servers MUST NOT move partial files, a

I think that would be a change to what we say today and what RFC2518 
said. Partial failure is about member resources not being moved, not 
about individual resources being in both places. Unless you were talking 
about collection specifically, which may be true. As proposed I find 
this misleading.

Furthermore: what does "move partial files" mean here?

> SHOULD NOT leave duplicate files in both places at the end of a MOVE 
> request."

If servers SHOULD NOT do that, why MUST clients expect and handle that? 
That doesn't seem to make sense from a spec language point of view.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 11:44:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:40 UTC