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

Re: Question on uniqueness of exclusive locks

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <372F493A.73D2513D@lyra.org>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> Sorry if this has already been discussed but it seems to me that exclusive
> locks can be replicated using the refresh mechanism and hence aren't really
> guaranteed to be exclusive but rather sort of shared. Look at this example:

They could be exclusive if you defined that to mean "exclusive to a

> - While working in my office I get a lock on a resource and start edit it.
> I suddenly have to run home so I save the edits but don't want to release
> the lock as I don't want other people to start editing the document.
> - Later on at home I continue editing the document but the document is
> still locked by me at work. However, I can discover the identity of the
> lock using a PROPFIND and while I can not relock the resource it seems that
> I can do a refresh on it which again seems to give me a copy of the lock at
> home.

Just holding the authorization and the lock token (found thru PROPFIND),
then you would have the lock at home.

Refreshing is incidental to your scenario.

Note, though: it seems that sections 6.6 and 12.1 do not require the
server to give up the lock token in a PROPFIND. Your home machine may
not be able to figure out what it is.

While the behavior seems okay (exclusive to a principal), it does not
help the user to manage machine-switches like the one you are
describing. Once you bring versioning into the picture, though, your
work machine may be storing intermediates to the server; your home
machine would then work on the intermediate, to be picked back up when
you return to work.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 1999 15:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:19 UTC