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

RE: [Moderator Action] Questions on Webdav Servers, MOVE and dest LOCK

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:47:36 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567BB.0009F939.00@D51MTA07.pok.ibm.com>

<prev>
> 3)  MOVE/COPY to a destination that is locked.  8.10.5 states "... a
> successful DELETE of a resource MUST cause all of its locks to be
> removed."
> and 8.8.4 states that overwrite set to T will do a DELETE....
> Then will the
> LOCK on the destination be lost??  This seems wrong to me.  If the
> destination is LOCKED, then after a MOVE/COPY which might delete the
> resource, I would assume the resource is still locked.

If the destination of a COPY/MOVE is locked, and you submit the lock token
of the destination lock in the If header, then the intent of RFC 2518 is
that the destination resource should be locked.  This is stated in the
second paragraph of section 7.7.
</prev>

Note: Although I don't think we deal directly on the topic of
locks at the destination in the Adv Coll spec, 7.7 does seem to
be in disagreement
with the MOVE semantics of the Adv. Coll. proposal. If anyone
feels strongly that section 7.7 should remain
as is, I suggest that they do a read of the Adv Coll
document and then express their opposition.  I just don't
want our Adv Coll work in this area to surprise anyone.

We also should make sure that the Adv Coll document is *clear*
on what should happen in this situation.  My opinion is that
the destination lock should go away as should the locks of
any decendent nodes in the URI tree at the destination.  I
could be persuaded otherwise for a lock on the destination
URI/resource specifically though.

J.
Received on Monday, 26 July 1999 21:49:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:51 GMT