- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:59:39 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I read 'T' for 'F' when I initially read John's email, so I guess that would require clients to change their code to get atomicity. John would a solution that required clients to change their code to require atomicity be acceptable? Lisa On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> I am on the fence for how to go with this issue, but I do note >> that your solution doesn't solve John's problem. There are many >> existing, deployed clients who already implement MOVE and John >> wants WFS to behave appropriately for them without forcing >> widespread client (in some cases, operating system) upgrade. > > Sorry? > > John asked for an extension that allows clients to state that MOVE > should be atomic (the default staying non-atomic for backwards > compatibility). > > Geoff pointed out that that extension already exists and is called > REBIND. > > Clients that would want to take advantage of it would need to be > upgraded in both cases. And, as a matter of fact, they would still > need to be able to handle servers with non-atomic MOVE > implementations. > > What am I missing? > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 01:00:01 UTC