Re: AW: AW: Standardizing Batch methods?

"Joe Feise" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.webdav
Message-ID <[email protected]>
How about starting with the workspace and activity concepts in DeltaV?

-Joe

On Mon, October 8, 2007 10:02, [email protected] 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
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]]
> Gesendet: Mo 08.10.2007 10:16
> An: Litz, Markus
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: AW: Standardizing Batch methods?
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> We develop a WebDAV client specialized for organizing scientific data
>> and one of its main requirements is absolute data integrity. There are
>> many situations on which one user action results in several
>> webdav-request. This leads to two serious disadvantages. First, if a
>> user action leads to 50 or 100 webdav request, depending on the network
>> bandwidth and server performance, this could be really slow. And
>> secondly if the client crashes in the middle of a difficult job, this
>> could result in inconsistent data.
>> Some time ago, there was a discussion about microsofts batch methods and
>> transactions, which deals about exact the same problems we facing here.
>> So, I'm interested if in the meantime one of this solutions had lead to
>> a draft status or if this issue had been discarded. Maybe our
>> organization could help working to accelerate the progress of writing a
>> draft.
>
> Markus,
>
> the main issue here is that it's totally non-trivial to define batch and
> transactions methods over HTTP.
>
> - for batch: things that bypass caches and pipelining may be slower in
> practice.
>
> - for transactions: I'm only aware of one implementation (Microsoft's),
> and that one breaks HTTP semantics.
>
> So, if you want to get somewhere somebody will have to make a proposal
> and start work implementing it inside a server, proving that it indeed
> works and performs well.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.