Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

Werner Donné <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.webdav
Message-ID <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
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.