Re: DELETE Semantics

   From: ccjason@us.ibm.com

   <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.

<gmc/> But the URL is "protected" by a LOCK, since we are requiring
that a subsequent use of the URL with that lock token always select
that locked resource.  We're just removing the language in 2518 that
over-constrained the server implementation (i.e. removing the language
that said you cannot apply a MOVE or a DELETE to a locked resource).
What 2518 didn't realize (and neither did I until Edgar pointed it
out) you don't need to prevent the MOVE or DELETE just to keep a
handle on the locked resource.

So you only need to apply a lock to a collection if you really want to
reserve the right to change the membership or properties of that
collection.

Cheers,
Geoff