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

Re: [Moderator Action] Questions on Webdav Servers

From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:29:36 -0400
Message-ID: <011201bee438$3d28fb30$0d1b15ac@aftershock.atria.com>
To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>

>Kevin Wiggen writes:
> ...
>> 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.


I agree that section 7.7 makes it clear that if you are *inheriting* a lock
from
a collection that *contains* the destination, then that inherited lock is
valid following a COPY/MOVE.  This makes sense since the locked collection
still exists following the COPY/MOVE.  But I do not see anything in 7.7 (or
in 7.5) that
either states or implies that a lock that was on the destination itself
remains
following the COPY/MOVE.  So as currently written, I believe that the spec
supports
Kevin's interpretation.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 1999 16:33:28 GMT

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