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

RE: LOCK NULL reserves what?

From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:28:32 -0700
Message-ID: <078292D50C98D2118D090008C7E9C6A601947480@STAY.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Step 1 - User A successfully take out an exclusive write lock on a/b, which
is a lock null resource.
Step 2 - User B tries to take out an exclusive write lock, depth = infinity
on a/. The write lock will fail because a/b is already locked.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccjason@us.ibm.com [mailto: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 17:28:42 GMT

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