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

Re: One lock per resource per person?

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:05:07 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256810.004D0617.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>

   <ck/> Using SCC systems today, I can
      create multiple shared locks against the same resource.  In
      general you can do this by "checking it out" multiple times, but
      the basic notion is that I may be engaged in parallel activities
      at my client even though I am the same principal.

   It's very important to distinguish "multiple checkouts" from "shared
   locks".  Multiple checkouts are safe and do not suffer from any lost
   update problem.  Shared write locks are not safe, and you are
   susceptible to getting your update's trashed by anyone else that
   shares that lock.

True.  And I expect shared write locks aren't going to be used much because
they depend on cooperation between clients.  But shared read locks
(write blocking locks) should get used A LOT.  That and future
types of locks is really where support for multiple locks per resource
would get exercised.  But in the meantime, since we do support shared write
locks, I'd like to get this defined.

My original posting is at...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999OctDec/0071.html
  and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999OctDec/0075.html

Is there a problem with supporting it?  Does the proposed clarification
sound reasonable?  I'd really feel better if more folks spoke up.  Then we
could put this issue to bed.
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 10:03:34 GMT

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