- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:00:55 -0500
- To: "Tim Olsen" <tolsen718@gmail.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFCFFF576F.E4C97DE2-ON85257266.00738C28-85257266.0073D0C5@us.ibm.com>
Your option (4) is fine with me. Now that I think of it, this did come up a while ago, and at that time, I think we expressed a preference for options 1/2 (keep the destination structure, and "last copy wins"). But in my opinion, one could make a reasonable argument for any of the 4 choices (so I'd code up whatever is easiest, unless you know for some reason that your clients would prefer one of those options). Cheers, Geoff "Tim Olsen" <tolsen718@gmail.com> 01/17/2007 02:57 PM To Geoffrey M Clemm/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS cc w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject Re: binds and overwriting infinite-depth copies If I go with option 3 and R3 is a VCR, then R4 and R5 will not contain the same version history any longer. (See answer to this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2006JulSep/0002.html ) Would this be a possible option? /b/c/p - R3 /b/d/p - R4 where R3 is a copy of R1 where R4 is a copy of R2 This way the structure is similar to /a and one of the resources carries on as R3 thanks, Tim On 1/17/07, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > It probably is easy to figure out, but below, I meant: > "is more structurally equivalent to /a" > and > "it is reasonable for the server to do 1 or 2". > > Sorry for the poor proofreading on the original response! > > Cheers, > Geoff > > > geoff wrote on 01/17/2007 07:05:05 AM: > > > > The spec does not give a definitive answer to this one. You have > > three reasonable choices: > > > > /b/c/p - R3 > > /b/d/p - R3 > > where R3 is a copy of R1 > > > > /b/c/p - R3 > > /b/d/p - R3 > > where R3 is a copy of R2 > > > > /b/c/p - R4 > > /b/d/p - R5 > > where R4 is a copy of R1 > > where R5 is a copy of R2 > > > > I have a slight preference for the third choice, since it is > > symmetric and is more structurally equivalent to /b. > > But I think it is reasonable for a server to do 1 or 3, in case it > > is expensive for it to detect this situation (so I think the spec > > should leave this up to the server). > > > "Tim Olsen" <tolsen718@gmail.com> > > Consider the following case. There exist the following URLs and the > > resource's they are bound to: > > > > /a/c/p - R1 > > /a/d/p - R2 > > /b/c/p - R3 > > /b/d/p - R3 > > > > /b/c and /b/d are different collections. > > > > What should happen if I do a COPY /a /b with overwrite set to true? > > Should the new /b/c/p and /b/d/p still be the same resource? Keep in > > mind that R3 may be a VCR. >
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 21:01:00 UTC