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

Re: RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

From: Del Jensen <dcjensen@novell.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 20:23:06 -0600
Message-Id: <s40880e8.041@novell.com>
To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch, yarong@microsoft.com, dbarrell@opentext.ch
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I am uncomforatble with the idea of a lock moving with a resource.  If the proposed semantics of move as "a copy followed by a delete" stands, then an authenticated client requesting a move with the appropriate lock token would anticipate the object to be where the move so directed (sans lock).  Thus, the lock acts simply as a collision aviodance mechanism over the lifetime of the copy and delete processes (whatever those entail).

To put it succinctly, "Locks on an object are lost when you move it.  ..."

   Del

>>> Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com> 08/29/97 06:06PM >>>
Clearly.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Martin J. Dnrst [SMTP:mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch] 
> Sent:	Friday, August 29, 1997 3:12 AM
> To:	Dylan Barrell
> Cc:	'WebDAV'; Yaron Goland
> Subject:	RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves
> 
> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Dylan Barrell wrote:
> 
> A locked resource obviously shouldn't be movable, only copyable.
> 
> Regards,	Martin.
> 
> 
> > This is way too restrictive. what use is a lock if I can eliminate
> it by simply moving it to another collection (on the same server) and
> back again?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Dylan
> > ----------
> > From: 	Yaron Goland[SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com] 
> > Sent: 	Donnerstag, 28. August 1997 13:34
> > To: 	'Dylan Barrell'; 'WebDAV'
> > Subject: 	RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves
> > 
> > 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
Received on Saturday, 30 August 1997 22:33:58 GMT

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