- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: 1999年4月12日 21:37:54 +0000
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <371267B2.D9A4B11@ecal.com>
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > I interpreted Judy's question as "are there different protocol > semantics for DELETE depending on how an advanced member collection > was created". And the answer to that should be "no". Agreed. > The question John was answering (I believe) was "if a server implements > some bindings differently from others, will it have to implement DELETE > differently on some of those implementations than others". Right. > Oh, and, for efficiency's sake, it will probably always be desirable > to be able to tell whether a resource is a link (the result of a > BIND), because BIND on a link should create a link to the target, not > to the existing link; otherwise you've got to chase through multiple > links on each request. (Again, the exception is if you can use Unix > hard links.) > > I assume you mean "the server should be able to tell how it has > implemented its bindings" Yes. :-) > If you mean "the client should be able to tell how the server > implemented its bindings", then I disagree. Nope, not trying to get into that--that was the point of BIND. :-) > (Side note: I need a term for a URI which is either the result or the target of > a BIND. I'll call it a polyvalent resource [one with multiple > attachments]--clumsy, but I'm only writing one paragraph. :-) > > It might be more transparent (but perhaps even clumsier :-), if we > just called it a "multibound resource". Whatever. I didn't want take the time to come with a good term; I just wanted a temporary...um, binding. :-) > This is not necessarily what I really > want; I probably want the resource at the new URI to be linked just as the > original was. To get this behavior, MOVE on a polyvalent resource needs to be > defined as a BIND followed by a DELETE. > > You'd have to weasle a bit with "is logically equivalent to", in order > to allow the MOVE of a monobound advanced collection member to another > server (if you really did a BIND/DELETE, the BIND would probably fail > because of the inability to have cross-server bindings). Right. -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/
Received on Monday, 12 April 1999 17:35:36 UTC