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

Re: resourcetype locknull

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:11:06 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525680A.005E5DA2.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>

That's exactly how I feel about it too. With MKRESOURCE, perhaps even PUT
shouldn't create resources as a side effect, but we have to be compatible with
HTTP conventions.

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com> on 10/14/99 10:23:30 AM

To:   w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Subject:  Re: resourcetype locknull

   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   We could eliminate lock-null resources, and keep the ability to reserve a
   in the namespace if LOCK on a null resource created a resource with an empty
   body and locked it. Since LOCK on a null resource isn't going to respond with
   404 Not Found anyway, it might as well create the resource.

Having LOCK create a null resource as a side effect?
This can't be "no control coupling" Jim Amsden talking here! (:-).

But seriously, I could easily live with this proposal.  Although I am
aesthetically against control coupling of this kind (i.e. creating a
resource and locking a resource should be two separate and orthogonal
requests), I could live with it if that's what it takes to get rid
of lock null resources.

Received on Thursday, 14 October 1999 13:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:18 UTC