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

Re: Simplifying RFC-2518 Locking: A proposal

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:57:39 -0400
Message-Id: <9910201757.AA22372@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Two key questions:

- Do we want a lock on a collection to lock the "body" of the collection?

- Does any locking implementation actually do this?

If as Jim Amsden points out, the "body" of a collection is usually just
a reference to some other resource, it would probably be better to
define a lock on a collection as *not* applying to the body of that
collection.

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>

   <JimW>
   A collection can also have a body as its state. This body would be affected
   by a lock.
   </JimW>

   <ja/> I understand a MKCOL method can include an entity request body, but the use of
   that body is not yet defined in WebDAV. I believe the spec says something about
   the body being used to create initial members of the collection. I dont remember
   anything about a collection having a body. Servers can define what GET on a
   collection means, but this (by convention) usually means returning the body of
   some distinguished member of the collection, the index page or some such thing.

   <js/> Yes, and that's the body of the collection.
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 13:57:44 GMT

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