В сообщении от Вторник 28 Март 2006 13:50 Vinod Panicker написал(a): > On 3/28/06, Vinod Panicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/28/06, Vinod Panicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/28/06, Philipp Hancke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Vinod Panicker wrote: > > > > >>According to to specification, resource must be unique, therefore > > > > >> it > > > > >> > > > > >>is not allowed to have two same resources. > > > > > > > > > > There's no such requirement in the RFC. > > > > > > > > rfc 3920, section 3.4: > > > > An entity MAY maintain multiple connected resources simultaneously, > > > > with each connected resource differentiated by a distinct resource > > > > identifier. > > > > > > This makes it extremely clear. I've been using this till now - > > > > > > o The provided resource identifier is already in use but the server > > > does not allow binding of multiple connected resources with the > > > same identifier. > > > > > > From section 7. This leaves room for doubt that the server MAY allow > > > binding of multiple connected resources with the same identifier. > > > > > > > > In fact, the RFC states that a server may allow multiple > > > > > "connected" > > > > > > > > > > resources with the same resource identifier. > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > This is possible after resource binding and before session > > > > establishment, but > > > > > > > > rfc 3921, section 3: > > > > If there is already an active resource of the same name, the server > > > > MUST either [...] > > > > > > > > there is never more than one active session per resource identifier. > > > > > > Yes, that seems to be implied. I'd really like it to be more direct > > > though. > > > > Sorry! This is extremely clear as well. Just re-read it. There > > mustn't be more than 1 active resource of a given name at any time. > > Anyways, the point to be clarified that remains is - > > In case of a connected resource, a new resource with the same resource > identifier is to be returned a <conflict/>, whereas in the case of an > active resource, a new resource with the same resource identifer is > recommended to be allowed to login, returning a <conflict/> to the old > resource. Unclear at least for me. How first case differs from the second?
> Regards, > Vinod. -- Respectfully Alexey Nezhdanov
