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

Re: LOCK Scenarios

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:45:46 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567D1.0067EA3B.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>

From: Jason Crawford on 08/18/99 02:18 PM

To:   jamsden@us.ibm.com

Subject:  Re: LOCK Scenarios  (Document link not converted)

I don't think the destination URL retains the lock of the resource that used to
be at that destination unless it just happens to have the same depth infinity
locked parent collection.
Right.  That's where there is a difference of opinion.
I hope I am expressing what is currently in the spec rather than an opinion. I'm
not opposed to changing the spec to something else, but I havn't seen anything
yet that would motivate me to retain destination locks.

...But this would be a new lock with the timeout reset.
New lock?  Perhaps I didn't understand what you just said
above about "same.... parent".  Please run that by me again.
Its a new lock on the destination (the new member of the parent collection), not
a new lock on the parent collection. Again, just like you would get if you did a
PUT or MKCOL to create a new resource in that collection. The new resource would
get a new (to it) lock inherited from its parent.
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 14:55:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:20 UTC