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.


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.  ..."


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

> -----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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:16 UTC