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

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

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@atria.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:28:01 -0400
Message-Id: <9904091728.AA00744@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, francis@ecal.com

I believe the answer is "not terrible at all".  If so, I assume the
answer is "do it as a header to LOCK" ?

Cheers,
Geoff

> From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
> 
> "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?
> 
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 13:28:12 GMT

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