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

Re: DELETE Semantics

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:42:59 -0400
To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567F6.0076B8D4.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>


    <ja>
    4. LOCK locks the resource, not the bindings. If the namespace needs to be
    controlled, then the user should lock the applicable parent collections.
    </ ja>

    <jlc>
    I agree that that's what seems to be suggested.  I just want to add, "ouch!
    That's a painful way to protect a URI.".
    </jlc>

  <jra>
  Then what are collections for if not to manage and control the namespace? What
  else could locking a collection mean? Note that it does not have to be a deep
  lock.
  </jra>

<jlc/> I agree that collections are to manage and control namespace.  My
editorial comment was that locking a whole collection to protect a single
binding seems like a lot of overkill.  And if you want to protect a URI
mapping... you'd have to lock the collection chain up to the root.  Even more
overkill.
Received on Friday, 24 September 1999 17:37:06 GMT

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