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, 4 Mar 1999 21:05:51 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792FD7@RED-MSG-59>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
It sounds to me that we are so far apart in our thinking that trying to do
this by e-mail will only prove a long and frustrating venture. As such I
suggest we just add this issue to the pool side chat at the upcoming IETF.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 8:09 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Locking a Resource or Locking a URL?
> 
> 
>    From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
> 
>    RFC 2518 requires that a LOCK lock a resource.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>    A reference is a resource.
> 
> I'll buy that.
> 
>    A LOCK against a reference MUST lock the reference.
> 
> No it doesn't.  The target of a reference is also a resource.
> All methods other than MOVE and DELETE operate on the target
> of the reference, not on the reference itself.  It is therefore
> both consistent and natural for the LOCK to apply to the
> *target* resource.  Do you expect a PUT to apply to the
> (non-existent) body of the reference itself?
> 
> I understand your desire to have the LOCK not only lock the
> body of the resource, but also lock the "binding" of the URL
> to that particular resource.  But the unacceptable consequences
> of doing so have been pointed out in earlier messages in
> this thread.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
Received on Friday, 5 March 1999 00:06:02 GMT

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