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

Re: DELETE leaving a lock-null resource; was LOCK Scenarios

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:21:46 -0400
Message-Id: <9909231521.AA07586@tantalum>
To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
<gmc/> After slightly wavering, I'm firmly back in the:
"just say no to lock-null resources" camp.
We just don't need the complexity of a "non-resource resource"
for the minimal gain it provides.

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   <jra>
   There are a large number of situations in authoring environments where
   transaction semantics are required. WebDAV doesn't (yet) support transactions,
   and I don't think we should attempt to come up with a lot of special cases (like
   lock-null resources) supported by the protocol to overcome this important
   missing function. Rather let's propose an extension that does support
   transactions. Might be pretty hard with a stateless server though.
   </jra>
   <JC>
   So you're not a fan of lock-null resources either at this stage.  That seems
   consistent.

   JimA and I have been doing all the talking for the last day.  Anyone else want
   to be heard?  :-)
   </JC>

   <jra>
   I don't really care that much one way or the other about lock-null resources. I
   think they add a lot of complexity to the protocol for little functional gain
   and wouldn't be opposed to removing them. But if they stay, that's OK too.  If
   lock-null stays, then I think it would be reasonable for delete on a locked
   resource to change the state of the resource to a lock-null resource. To
   complete the delete, the client would have to do the unlock. This is at least
   consistent semantics and allows the protocol to support symmetric resource
   life-times.
   </jra>
Received on Thursday, 23 September 1999 11:21:53 GMT

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