- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: 2000年1月28日 09:25:36 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-Id: <10001281425.AA00013@tantalum>
Thanks for the explanation. By "state" I just meant "the set of bindings", but I see how a non-clairvoyant reader would not know this. Just to confirm that I understood your point, would this rewording be acceptable: "A successful DELETE removes the specified binding from the specified collection, but (whether it succeeds or fails) MUST NOT remove any other other bindings from the specified collection or any other collection." Cheers, Geoff From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU> In message <10001271914.AA29510@tantalum>, "Geoffrey M. Clemm" writes: > >"A DELETE modifies the state of the collection resource containing the > >specified binding (namely, by deleting that binding), but MUST NOT > >modify the state of any other collection resource as a side effect." > > No, that is a requirement on the implementation, not the protocol. > Why don't you just use the two paragraphs that Judy listed? > >I like Judy's two paragraphs, so that's fine with me. > >Just for interests sake, since my rewording was intended to be just >state the key point from Judy's two paragraphs, what was wrong with >it? Doesn't a protocol always defines requirements on the >implementation? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just didn't >understand your point.) A protocol requires that the externally visible behavior of the component match that expected by the protocol. The way you phrased it was specifying the state within the collection component rather than what was visible to other components. Consider, for example, that a hierarchical database implementation of collections might have dual-linked relations between sister collections, and thus deletion of one collection would have to effect another collection. The point being that we don't have to require anything beyond what the protocol means -- specifying anything beyond that is just overkill and tends to limit implementations unnecessarily. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 28 January 2000 09:25:40 UTC