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

Re: resourcetype locknull

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:00:56 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525680B.0068A4E1.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>


John,
Locking a collection means users that do not own the lock cannot modify the
collection. That is, they cannot add or remove members and cannot modify the
collections properties.





John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> on 10/15/99 09:44:50 AM

To:   w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
cc:

Subject:  Re: resourcetype locknull



"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

>    - return a 404 if there is no resource to LOCK,
>    - let the client create a "null" instance of what it wants there,
>    - then the client locks that null instance and it is off and running.

For collections, this doesn't work properly with your/Alan's proposal for static
depth locking.  If I'm creating a collection, I do LOCK (404), MKCOL, LOCK--but
this LOCK only locks the resources that are there now (i.e., none).  So anybody
else is free to come along and add new resources, and my lock means nothing.
For
collections that are meant to model compound documents or some such, where the
entire state of the collection needs to be treated as a unit, this is a Bad
Thing.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Illiterate? Write today for free help!       |
|francis@ecal.com|                                             |
\==============================================================/
Received on Friday, 15 October 1999 15:04:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:52 GMT