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

Re: Can you move a locked file?

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:18:47 -0400
Message-Id: <9910241818.AA24328@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

   From: "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

   While I understand your justifiable fear that the access linearization
   caused by locks will hinder collaboration you must understand that the
   reason my users use locks is exactly that - they want to PROHIBIT

Then they should just make sure to buy a server that blocks MOVE's of
locked files (which I agree a server should be able to do).

   For your users, WebDAV is a great way to powerfully leverage the
   collaborative features of the web.

Which means they probably will instead chose a server that does lock
tracking and returns 302's.

   Our two user's needs are in direct conflict.

So they buy different servers, but clients and servers can use the
same protocol ... and everybody is as happy as one can reasonably expect.

   You have proposed two mitigating technologies, lock monitors and auto-email
   notifications. Even if I could include those in a $200 OS product (which I

I feel compelled to point out that $200 times 10 million users equals
2 billion dollars (:-).  Also that the current complexity of that $200
OS product makes lock monitors and auto-email an unmeasurably small
increase in complexity.  But then again, probably the last thing it
needs is even an unmeasurably small increase in complexity (:-).

   I would not do so anyway because my users do not want to have to deal
   with the ramifications of these technologies. My users do not want to get an
   e-mail telling them their files have moved. They just want their files to
   stay where they were put.

Fair enough.  So we make sure that the protocol allows their server to refuse
to do the moves.

   Given the contradictory needs of our user bases I see two choices.

   Choice 1 - We agree to disagree. Deciding the problem is irresolvable we
   create two types of locks in WebDAV. This, of course, destroys any hope for
   interoperability and puts blocks in the road of my users as they "grow" from
   their current "private data world" model to a more open "collaborative world

Bad choice.

   Choice 2 - We agree that locks, as unfortunate as it may be, must lock the
   namespace and accept this limitation as the cost of bringing the widest
   number of users into WebDAV.

What about choice 3:

   Choice 3 - The protocol allows a server to either refuse the move
   (returning "locked" status) or to promise to track the move and return
   302's as appropriate.  No problem for the clients, since they have to
   deal with 302's anyway, and no problem for the servers, since they can
   do what they believe is the right thing for their users.  Then we
   let the market decide which server was right ... and all the while,
   we have one common protocol to interoperate with.

Received on Sunday, 24 October 1999 14:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:18 UTC