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

RE: Locking a Resource or Locking a URL?

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:08:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792F94@RED-MSG-59>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
[Larry, stop laughing.]

You perceive a differentiation where none exists. URLs exist solely to
address resources. That a resource has multiple URLs is irrelevant. When a
method is sent to a URL the end result is an interaction with a resource.
Thus, using your language, #2 is correct. Any other interpretation would
mean that someone locking a resource through one URL could still see the
resource changed simply because someone addressing the same resource through
another URL made a change. I believe the WebDAV spec to be crystal clear on
this point but if somehow the language has lead you astray please point out
the language that confused you and I will make sure it is properly edited
before we move on to draft status.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 8:35 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Locking a Resource or Locking a URL?
> 
> 
> 
> One of the key topics in the recent thread on the Adv. 
> Versioning Collection
> protocol was the question of what gets locked when you lock a 
> resource.
> 
> There are (at least :-) three interpretations:
> 
> (1) You are locking only the resource.
> 
> (2) You are locking what appears at a given URL (i.e. if the resource
> currently selected at that URL also appears at another URL, then the
> lock does not apply to accesses through that other URL).
> 
> (3) You are locking both the resource and the fact that the resource
> appears at the given URL.
> 
> In my message in the Adv. Coll. thread, I gave arguments for why
> (3) does not work in the context of references and versioning.
> 
> In this message, I would like to confirm that nobody believes that
> (2) is the correct interpretation.  In particular, I would like to
> confirm that if /a/x.html and /b/y.html happen to be the same resource
> (by some quirk of the server, say), and /a/x.html is locked, then
> a PUT to /b/y.html would fail without the appropriate lock token.
> 
> There also is the question of whether lock discovery would detect this
> implicit lock on /b/y.html.  This question has two parts ... what do
> you think the spec currently says, and what did the spec authors
> intend?
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 01:08:17 GMT

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