Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:36:05 -0500

From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]

   > From: Clemm, Geoff
   > If you are using bindings to capture some relationship, and that
   > relationship is cyclic, then you can't capture that relationship
   > if you are not allowed to create cyclic bindings.

   I'd still feel better if you could give a simple example...

Suppose the relationship I'm capturing in a set of collections
is the "uses" relationship between software modules.  This me to
use pathnames like "moda/modb/modc" to refer to the module named
modc used by the module named modb which in turn is used by the
module named moda.  Since the "uses" relationship can be cyclic,
I could get a path like "moda/modb/modc/moda/...".

>    BTW: this precondition applies to all namespace-manipulating
>    operations (a MOVE of a collection may fail for the same reason).

Good point.  I'll add the precondition to the MOVE method as well.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Elias <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:36:15 -0800

Is there some compelling reason you would use BIND to capture this 
relationship? It seems like this could be captured just as easily and 
without losing any expressiveness via the use of a "uses" property instead.

Elias

Clemm, Geoff wrote:

> [...]