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

RE: Multiple exclusive locks on a resource

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:08:40 -0700
To: ccjason@us.ibm.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJCEPJCCAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>


My recollection is that this issue was discussed during one of the face to
face meetings, and the resultion was that the second lock request would just
fail.

In my view, this is an extremely uncommon scenario, and it isn't worth
adding complexity to either implementations or the standard to handle it
well.  The complexity of expanding the existing lock just doesn't seem to be
worth it.

- Jim

> Just another LOCK issue that I'm about to add to the list...
>
> A resource can only have one exclusive lock on it right?
>
> Well, what about if a principle locks (with depth) two trees of
> resources... but
> those two trees have some resources in common?  That means those common
> resources would have two exclusive locks on them.  Illegal,
> right?  But the same
> principle owns both locks mind you.  It would sure be nice to
> allow this... at
> least from this perspective.  If we did not, it would sure be
> tedious to lock
> both trees.
>
> I haven't thought of the ramifications yet.
>
> J.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>
>
Received on Sunday, 15 August 1999 19:16:37 GMT

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