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

Re: resourcetype locknull

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@atria.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:45:57 -0400
Message-Id: <9910131745.AA18652@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Could someone *pleeeassse* tell me what problem "lock null" resources
are supposed to solve?  I found a message from Yaron dated 3/22/98 where
they appear to be introduced by an analogy with the need for "zero"
when you are counting.  I am not convinced (:-).

If you want to "lock" a place where there is no resource, create some
dummy resource there and lock that.

Currently we're stuck with several paragraphs of verbiage telling us
how a lock null resource behaves exactly like a regular resource except
that it returns a "404" when you try to get its body.  Is that feature
so important that it warrants the incremental complexity and confusion
that it adds to the spec?

I propose that we strike all references to "lock null" resources in

Note: Unlike my previous more radical non-proposal (which by the way is
still what I wish we would do :-), this is a serious proposal.


> From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Wed Oct 13 12:36 EDT 1999
> Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:35:25 -0400 (EDT)
> Resent-Message-Id: <199910131635.MAA02545@www19.w3.org>
> From: ccjason@us.ibm.com
> X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org (w3c-dist-auth)
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:38:49 -0400
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Subject: resourcetype locknull
> Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> X-Mailing-List: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> archive/latest/3441
> X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> I've noted it in the lock issues list and I suspect Jim already has it in the
> 2518 issue list, but in the definition section it says that lock-null resources
> are not listed as children of their parent... and (by omiision) cannot accept
> UNLOCK and PROPFIND methods.  Later in the document it says the opposite.   I
> believe the later information is correct.
> Based on that assumption and a "problem" I encountered with LOCK support in the
> Linux version of mod_dav, I'd like to propose   "lock-null" as a potential value
> for the resourcetype property.  This will give clients a predictable value there
> for lock-null resources.
> What is the "problem" in linux mod_dav?  Well it claims that the lock-null
> resource is a collection.  That's not technically incorrect.  So I'd like to
> insure that we specify exactly what is returned for the sake of clients.  And it
> seems like a new value would be appropriate.
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 13:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:20 UTC