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

RE: RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

From: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:18:50 -0400
Message-ID: <01BCB6B8.0FC90040@cassius.opentext.ch>
To: "dbarrell@opentext.ch" <dbarrell@opentext.ch>, "'Del Jensen'" <dcjensen@novell.com>, "mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, "yarong@microsoft.com" <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Th behaviour of removing a lock when moving a resource is bound to result in overwrite conflicts due to locks being inadvertantly lost through some structural re-organisation. This will also require that only the owner of the lock be able to move the resource which is unnecessarily restrictive in a shared authoring environment where one individual might be responsible for content and another for structure. 

This is very common in Web authoring.

Cheers
Dylan

----------
From: 	Del Jensen[SMTP:dcjensen@novell.com]
Sent: 	Samstag, 30. August 1997 22:23
To: 	mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch; yarong@microsoft.com; dbarrell@opentext.ch
Cc: 	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: 	Re: RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

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 Monday, 1 September 1997 03:22:08 GMT

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