- From: Eric Sedlar <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
- Date: 1999年12月07日 15:00:44 -0800
- To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <384D919C.9FD474DB@us.oracle.com>
Couldn't you make PUT and MKCOL all create strong bindings, and then have weak BINDings from BIND? Then you wouldn't have to introduce fake bindings to maintain persistence? --Eric "Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com> > > Can a server implementer build both strong & weak BINDings and only allow > cycles in weak bindings? > > The current binding spec only defines strong bindings, but if your > server only allows cycles with weak bindings, you could implement BIND > by anchoring all resources with a strong binding outside of the URL > space, and then use weak bindings to implement all BIND operations. > > ccjason@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > Alternately, a server implementer can disallow cyclic > > bindings from being inserted in the first place, which is > > computationally much cheaper, but which restricts the usefulness of > > BINDings. (Like the way UNIX restricts hard links to directories). > > > > This is now forbidden by the spec. > > > > Just to clarify. By "this" Geoff was refering to the possibility of the > > server not supporting cycles. The proposed changes now require servers > > to allow cycles to be created. Geoff was not suggesting anything > > regarding hard links to directories. > > Well either you can use the UNIX filesystem to support advanced collections > or you can't. It sounds like the current answer is that you can't. > > You can, using the technique described above, i.e. implementing bindings > as symbolic links into a source tree maintained outside of the URL namespace. > > Cheers, > Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 18:09:22 UTC