W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: Comments on 06 spec

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:12:47 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0113C716@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, Fisher Mark <FisherM@exch1.indy.tce.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hold it, the spec does not state that GETs are unaffected by locks. It
states that GETs are unaffected by WRITE locks. This is only one kind of
lock. I know that a read lock spec will be released in the near future
(mostly because I have to write it). Additionally our syntax allows for one
to request multiple lock types simultaneous so one could, for example, ask
for a read/write exclusive lock. This would create the sort of atomicity
that has been asked for.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Monday, January 26, 1998 10:42 AM
> To:	Fisher Mark
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Comments on 06 spec
> 
> At 09:36 AM 1/26/98 PST, Fisher Mark wrote:
> >
> >Maybe I am assuming too much, but if I was a user of a commercial-grade
> >WebDAV system, I would just assume that appropriate locks were taken out
> >automatically on the subordinate objects, so that Joe could not access P
> >or its subordinate objects once Jane had set the deletion in motion.
> 
> This assumption is false.  The spec says explicitly that GET is unaffected
> by locks.
> 
> Perhaps this indicates the need for a sentence or two in the spec to
> explicitly call out this possibility for integrity violations.  I
> acknowledge in advance the need for a balance between tutorial/cautionary
> material and straightforward exposition, but if this is a plausible
> misunderstanding then perhaps it is good to try a little harder to fend it
> off.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 20:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT