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

Re: Bindings, Locks, and MOVE

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:50:41 -0400
Message-ID: <852567E0.00773FF3.00@D51MTA07.pok.ibm.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

<JS>
This discussion began with Yaron's comment that saying that "it MUST NOT be
possible for a principal other than the lock owner to make a locked resource
inaccessible via the URI mapping used to lock the resource" is too strong.
It may make sense for write locks as defined in RFC 2518, but may not make
sense for other sorts of locks that don't restrict MOVE and DELETE.
</JS>
I believe that this is not specific to any particular type of locks.  All
clients need to insure that they have at the very least a way to unlock
the the locks they have created.  I assume that to unlock (a resource), we
have to provide a URI of a (the?) resource locked by that lock... so if
someone else changes the URI, it's
very likely that we're not going to be able to figure out what the new
URI is... and will have to leave the lock around until it times out.
Received on Thursday, 2 September 1999 17:42:45 GMT

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