Subject: Re: COPY and bindings

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:25:11 -0400

I recommend that we specify that the server SHOULD create a single copy of 
the resource.  To encourage this we can also point out that this can 
improve the performance of the operation because it can prevent the 
recopying/xmitting of identical subtrees.  The server probably has to do 
loop detection anyway to avoid infinite loops, so this shouldn't be 
difficult to do.

J.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:14:41 +0200

Agreed.

Should we mention that it can't be a "must" because there may be servers
where only parts of the URL namespace support multiple bindings?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:25 PM
  To: Chris Knight
  Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm; Nevermann, Dr., Peter; [email-masked]'
  Subject: Re: COPY and bindings

  I recommend that we specify that the server SHOULD create a single copy of
the resource.  To encourage this we can also point out that this can improve
the performance of the operation because it can prevent the
recopying/xmitting of identical subtrees.  The server probably has to do
loop detection anyway to avoid infinite loops, so this shouldn't be
difficult to do.

  J.