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

Re: LOCK NULL reserves what?

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:55:49 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567D2.00793E5F.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>


The intent is that a lock on the parent collection preserves that namespace by
preventing the addition or removal of members. So any method that effects a
DELETE would fail as it changes the namespace even though it might be temporary.
The owner of the lock on the parent collection can change the collection
members, and the owner of the lock on the lock-null resource can set the
resource contents with PUT. But the owner of the lock-null resource cannot
UNLOCK or DELETE the lock-null resource, or MOVE it to a different parent.





ccjason@us.ibm.com on 08/19/99 02:14:09 PM

To:   w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
cc:

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 18:04:28 GMT

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