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

Re: Simplifying RFC-2518 Locking: A proposal

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:57:14 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525680E.0057D565.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>

The lock can expire for the principle owning the lock, not the lock token. This
implies a principle can't own multiple locks on the same resource which is
already the case.

John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> on 10/18/99 11:26:39 AM

To:   w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Subject:  Re: Simplifying RFC-2518 Locking: A proposal

jamsden@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I suspect most clients would work just fine if the server returned a
> constant for the lock token for compatibility purposes. What do others think?

Constant lock tokens have the problem that they can't expire.

|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |The plural of mongoose is polygoose.         |
|francis@ecal.com|                                             |
Received on Monday, 18 October 1999 11:59:52 UTC

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