- From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:36 +0200
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I don't understand how COPY/DELETE semantics for the MOVE could apply to a version controlled resource. It would destroy the version history. It may be a valid implementation, but not a very useful one. Regards, Werner. On 16 Aug 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > The "Hm" note is correct. A MOVE will create an additional binding > if the MOVE has REBIND semantics, but not if the MOVE has COPY/ > DELETE semantics. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 08/16/2008 06:31:45 > AM: > > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > >> > > >> Point 1 is correct. > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > I think Werner is right in that many do not understand the > relation > > > between BIND and DeltaV, and thus it would be useful to state it. > > > > > > We already have a "Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol" > > > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest. > > html#rfc.section.9>), > > > so my proposal would be to make that a generic "Relationship to > other > > > WebDAV Specifications", and having one subsection for ACL and > DeltaV each. > > > > > > The DeltaV part could read (this is mainly Werner's text): > > > > > > "When supporting version controlled collections, bindings may be > > > introduced in a server without actually issuing the BIND method. > For > > > instance, when a MOVE is performed of a resource from one > > > version-controlled collection to another, both collections > should be > > > checked out. An additional binding would be the result if the > target > > > collection would be subsequently checked in, while the check-out > of the > > > source collection is undone. The resulting situation is > meaningless if > > > the binding model is not supported." > > > ... > > > > Hm. > > > > It just occurred to me that a server that implements MOVE as a > sequence > > of COPY and DELETE would expose a different behavior -- checking > in the > > destination collection but reverting the source collection would > turn > > the operation into the equivalent of a COPY, not a BIND... > > > > BR, Julian -- Werner Donné -- Re http://www.pincette.biz Engelbeekstraat 8 http://www.re.be BE-3300 Tienen tel: (+32) 486 425803 e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 08:42:14 UTC