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

RE: LOCK NULL reserves what?

From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@wiggenout.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:42:42 -0700
To: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LNBBKDGPNJMOJNOBHLLMOEMOCBAA.wiggs@wiggenout.com>

It is my understanding that locking a collection simply locks the namespace
of the collection.

If /a is locked by L1
and /a/b is locked by L2

Then to change /a/b I only need to give L2, since /a's namespace will not
change.

Thus if /a/b is a null-resource, and you have the lock, then you can change
it at will through a PUT.

MOVE/COPY are interesting in the fact that if the whole operation is not
automic, then the Delete will fail due to the changing namespace..

I would assume that the MOVE/COPY would work without L1 if I were a client
program.

Is this not how it is supposed to work??

Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ccjason@us.ibm.com
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 11:14 AM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: LOCK NULL reserves what?



Whoops, I sent this to the wrong address last night....

My comments in my previous note remind me of something else.

If I have
a lock-null resource, and if someone places a lock on the
parent collection, am I blocked from doing a BIND or MOVE on my
lock-null URI?  I believe the intent of the lock-null is to insure
that we can do operations like  PUT/MKCOL there... but I'd think
that BIND and MOVE also apply... at least in intent... but that
seems to conflict with what we've been saying about BIND/MOVE
being an operation on the state of the parent collection...
and thereby blocked if someone else locks the parent.
Any thoughts?

Yaron?  :-)


------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 19 August 1999 14:48:39 GMT

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