W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: AW: AW: Standardizing Batch methods?

From: Joe Feise <jfeise@feise.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4498.>
To: markus.litz@dlr.de
Cc: julian.reschke@gmx.de, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

How about starting with the workspace and activity concepts in DeltaV?


On Mon, October 8, 2007 10:02, markus.litz@dlr.de wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> so this is indeed a unsolved problem. I was wondering if someone already
> started with writing a proposal for either batch calls or transactions.
> Was there a discussion on which a preference became clear?
> The best may be if I start with reading the microsoft batch & transaction
> definitions, and than we consider to start working on a draft.
> Ideas?
> Markus
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Gesendet: Mo 08.10.2007 10:16
> An: Litz, Markus
> Cc: tim@brooklynpenguin.com; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Standardizing Batch methods?
> markus.litz@dlr.de wrote:
>> We develop a WebDAV client specialized for organizing scientific data
>> and one of its main requirements is absolute data integrity. There are
>> many situations on which one user action results in several
>> webdav-request. This leads to two serious disadvantages. First, if a
>> user action leads to 50 or 100 webdav request, depending on the network
>> bandwidth and server performance, this could be really slow. And
>> secondly if the client crashes in the middle of a difficult job, this
>> could result in inconsistent data.
>> Some time ago, there was a discussion about microsofts batch methods and
>> transactions, which deals about exact the same problems we facing here.
>> So, I'm interested if in the meantime one of this solutions had lead to
>> a draft status or if this issue had been discarded. Maybe our
>> organization could help working to accelerate the progress of writing a
>> draft.
> Markus,
> the main issue here is that it's totally non-trivial to define batch and
> transactions methods over HTTP.
> - for batch: things that bypass caches and pipelining may be slower in
> practice.
> - for transactions: I'm only aware of one implementation (Microsoft's),
> and that one breaks HTTP semantics.
> So, if you want to get somewhere somebody will have to make a proposal
> and start work implementing it inside a server, proving that it indeed
> works and performs well.
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 17:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:42 UTC