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

RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:34:45 -0700
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485037BC20F@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Dylan Barrell'" <dbarrell@opentext.ch>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Locks on an object are lost when you move it. To do otherwise would
require DAV to implement server to server communication in order to make
locks portable.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dylan Barrell [SMTP:dbarrell@opentext.ch]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 28, 1997 2:30 PM
> To:	'WebDAV'
> Subject:	Locks, reservations, copies and moves
> 
> There seems to be a bit of a hole in the draft in its current form
> with regard to locks and reservations which needs to be filled. We
> need to specify - either in the requirements document or in the spec -
> what happens to locks and reservations when a resource or collection
> of resources is copied and/or moved. The issue becomes problematic
> when you consider that the current definition of MOVE is a COPY
> followed by a DELETE and when you consider the issue of multi-resource
> locking.
> 
> I don't know what the consensus is among the server folks but it seems
> to me that some of the server implementations might have problems
> dealing with these issues.
> 
> The simplest solution seems to me to do the following
> 
> 1. Disallow moving of locked or reserved resources (or at least
> resource locked as part of a multi.-resource lock)
> 2. Specifically state that the correct behaviour in the case of a COPY
> is to NOT copy the locks or reservations.
> 3. Change the definition of MOVE to be independent of COPY
> 
> Cheers
> Dylan
Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 15:04:05 GMT

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