W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: State-Lock [was Re: Proposal: BIND method]

From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 16:35:11 +0000
Message-ID: <370E2C3F.DB717267@ecal.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

> I will be posting a proposal for the "state-lock" locking variant soon.
> One meta-question: This could be a new SLOCK method, or a State
> header to the existing LOCK method ... does anyone have a preference?

I think it comes down to the question: how terrible will it be if a client asks a
base DAV server for a state lock and the server thinks it's asking for a name
lock?

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
|francis@ecal.com|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 12:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:49 GMT