W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Last call: range locking

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:14:41 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-970304191441Z-2137@INET-04-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'Ron Daniel Jr.'" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>, "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sounds like the proposal I made last month
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/msg00645.html).
	Yaron

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Ron Daniel Jr. [SMTP:rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov]
>Sent:	Tuesday, March 04, 1997 7:42 AM
>To:	Larry Masinter
>Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>Subject:	Re: Last call: range locking
>
>At 03:25 AM 3/4/97 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> I don't
>>> see any good reason why the protocol needs to get more complicated
>>> to deal with "byte range locking" when "resource locking" covers
>>> it, because a "byte range" can be a "resource".
>
>I agree with Larry on this. If we can do locks based on URIs, then
>we have the ability to identify the resource that is bytes n..m of
>some other resource and lock it. Maybe I've just missed them, but I
>haven't seen any real arguments on why this is insufficient and why
>the only good way to implement this functionality is to make it a part
>of some special protocol, such as a new LOCKRANGE method for HTTP.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:+1 505 665 0597
>Advanced Computing Lab        fax:+1 505 665 4939
>MS B287                     email:rdaniel@lanl.gov
>Los Alamos National Lab      http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
>Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545  
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 14:16:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT