Subject: Source: header

From: "Keith Wannamaker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:22:05 -0500

Hi all,

Recently I worked to add support to Xythos Storage Server for
remote COPY destinations.  To maximize flexibility, Xythos goes
a step farther and adds support for a "Source:" header.
It is hoped the group might consider adding this header to a
future revision of RFC 2518.

The Source header is formed similarly to the Destination header:

  Source = "Source" ":" absoluteURI

For Xythos, either a Source: or a Destination: header (but not both)
must be present in a COPY request.

When specified, the Source header indicates the local or remote
source of the copy, while the request URI indicates the local
target of the copy.

All other aspects of parsing and execution of the COPY are
the same as described in 2518.

Keith Wannamaker

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:57:14 -0500

> future revision of RFC 2518.

Um...why? What does it add that you can't express with Destination:?

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn?|
[email-masked]|                                              |
\===============================================================/

---

From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:33:15 -0500 (EST)

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>

I'm guessing that Keith added this to handle the case where you are
copying between two servers, and only the destination server has
implemented the COPY request.  In addition, it is more likely that
the destination server knows what live properties it handles, and
therefore is more likely to handle the COPY better.

Arguably, this is how 2518 should have done it in the first place,
since the real work is being done on the Destination and therefore the
request should have been directed at the Destination with the Source
as a parameter, but I'm sure that the 2518 authors had their reasons (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:48:42 -0500

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

> implemented the COPY request.

Let's see...what I was thinking was that you could just talk to the
destination server and give it the source URL in the request-URI.  But, no,
that won't work through proxies.  OK, never mind.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |I imagine the wages of sin *are* death, but by  |
[email-masked]|the time they take taxes out it's just sort of a|
|                |tired feeling. --Paula Poundstone               |
\=================================================================/

---

From: "Kevin Wiggen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:37:19 -0800

There are instances when a user would like to get a file from a URL (mp3,
word doc, etc) that is not on a Webdav Server (or one that does not allow
for cross server Copies).  This allows Xythos to go get the file and store
it for the user.

There are a lot of proprietary extensions out there to do "cross loading"
Xythos would like to see a Webdav COPY be the standard, thus we propose
adding the "Source" tag so that clients can cause server-server copies
across Webdav Servers and/or across a Webdav Server and a HTTP server.

This gives flexibility to a Webdav server as it is able to copy resources
between machines both as a Source and a Destination.

Kevin
Xythos

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Stracke
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 5:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Source: header