Subject: RFC2518bis issue: Transactions & BATCH method

From: "B. Shadgar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:18:36 +0100

Hi,

There was already a discussion under : " Interest in standardizing Batch
methods?"  title.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/thread.html#26

Also another discussion  under: "  Proposal: WebDAV and transactions"
title.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JulSep/thread.html#249

And for some reasons such as less priority or lack of consensus,  it has
been postponed till now. However, I was wondering if you are interested
to add this topic in the charter of this meeting in Vienna.

I am personally interested to add a BATCH method to handle transactions.
There are many scenarios that illustrate the need for this transactional
BATCH method, such as :

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0010.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JulSep/0217.html

I also know that many of people in this mailing list who do not agree
with Batch method because it causes the transparency problem for
intermediaries. However, what about using the pre-defined Batch method
for some known functions such as Update a file, which for example can be
done by  PUT, LOCK, PROPPATCH, UNLOCK, DELETE(s), PUT(s). In this case,
since the function is already defined, the content of BATCH method is
clear for intermediaries as well.

There is another scenario for predefined BATCH methods which handle a
transaction. It is about mapping the SQL queries into the WebDAV
methods. In this case also we may need more than a WebDAV method to
represent a SQL query. However those methods are pre-defined for each
type of SQL query such as Create Table, Drop table, Insert, ....  and
also each bunch of methods must be handled as one transaction.

Regards,
Bita

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:59:25 -0700

Is anybody willing to lead a discussion of this at Vienna?  Bita
unfortunately cannot make it.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of B. Shadgar
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:19 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RFC2518bis issue: Transactions & BATCH method
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There was already a discussion under : " Interest in 
> standardizing Batch methods?"  title.
> 

Also another discussion  under: "  Proposal: WebDAV and transactions" title.

And for some reasons such as less priority or lack of consensus,  it has
been postponed till now. However, I was wondering if you are interested to
add this topic in the charter of this meeting in Vienna.

I also know that many of people in this mailing list who do not agree with
Batch method because it causes the transparency problem for intermediaries.
However, what about using the pre-defined Batch method for some known
functions such as Update a file, which for example can be done by  PUT,
LOCK, PROPPATCH, UNLOCK, DELETE(s), PUT(s). In this case, since the function
is already defined, the content of BATCH method is clear for intermediaries
as well.

There is another scenario for predefined BATCH methods which handle a
transaction. It is about mapping the SQL queries into the WebDAV methods. In
this case also we may need more than a WebDAV method to represent a SQL
query. However those methods are pre-defined for each type of SQL query such
as Create Table, Drop table, Insert, ....  and also each bunch of methods
must be handled as one transaction.

Regards,
Bita