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

Re: resourcetype locknull

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:23:46 -0400
Message-Id: <9910141723.AA19402@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

That's good to hear ... that means the body-snatchers didn't
get you after all (:-).  I'm actually not as concerned about
PUT and MKRESOURCE being allowed to both create and update
resources, since they both know what kind of resource should
be there when they are done.  I think LOCK is very different
because you *can't* infer from the LOCK call what kind of resource
should be created if none is there at the moment.


   From: jamsden@us.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

   Having LOCK create a null resource as a side effect?
   This can't be "no control coupling" Jim Amsden talking here! (:-).
Received on Thursday, 14 October 1999 13:23:48 UTC

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