List Info

Thread: Comments on the "new" 2518 -- Compliance Level




Comments on the "new" 2518 -- Compliance Level
user name
2006-03-02 01:48:04

Since the actions of Move, Copy, Delete are not backwardly compatible, I don’t agree with the Compliance Classes that are listed in the document.  A client will probably want to know if it’s talking to an OLDER server or a NEWER server before it takes action.  Thus there needs to be a way for a client to tell. ; Also can a server implement both (again for backward compatibility) and thus let the client tell the server what type of MOVE it would like (adding a DAV: 1 header or something). Maybe DAV:1 = old RFC2518, DAV:2 = either RFC2518 w/ locks, and DAV:3 = new RFC2518.  I am not sure how a server can be 1 & 3 with the changes to MOVE/COPY/DELETE.

Comments on the "new" 2518 -- Compliance Level
user name
2006-03-02 08:27:08
Kevin Wiggen wrote:
> Since the actions of Move, Copy, Delete are not
backwardly compatible, I 
> don’t agree with the Compliance Classes that are listed
in the 
> document.  A client will probably want to know if it’s
talking to an 
> OLDER server or a NEWER server before it takes action. 
Thus there needs 
> to be a way for a client to tell.  Also can a server
implement both 
> (again for backward compatibility) and thus let the
client tell the 
> server what type of MOVE it would like (adding a DAV: 1
header or 
> something). Maybe DAV:1 = old RFC2518, DAV:2 = either
RFC2518 w/ locks, 
> and DAV:3 = new RFC2518.  I am not sure how a server
can be 1 & 3 with 
> the changes to MOVE/COPY/DELETE.

Again, there are no changes for MOVE/COPY/DELETE, and older
clients are 
supposed to work with newer servers.

Best regards, Julian

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )