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

Re: AW: AW: Standardizing Batch methods?

From: Markus Litz <markus.litz@cth-soft.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:24:01 +0200
Message-ID: <db9d0add0710091224p4569d777ibc73c8d9969c90c4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, jfeise@feise.com, werner.donne@re.be
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Julian, Joe, Werner,

thank for your hints. I will check advanced versioning, maybe it
complies with our requirements. If it goes not far enough, we may
consider to work on a draft either on transactions or batch methods.
Then we plan anyway to do a reference implementation to stimulate
others to follow that path, but I'm pessimistic that _one_
implementation could do that...

Anyway, I'll inform this list on out next steps, eventually others
come to the same situation and need some inspiration.

So long

On 10/8/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
> I would say working on a draft can be useful, but what's even more
> important is to find people willing to implement it. Just writing a
> draft is unlikely to make implementations happen (even RFC4918 IMHO so
> far has a *single* implementation...).
> So I'd urge you to first understand what the problems with the Microsoft
> implementations are, and then to check whether the advanced features
> defined in RFC3253 do not already do what you're looking for (at least
> with respect to transactions).
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 04:36:11 UTC

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