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: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:18:50 -0400
To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256819.0069D74F.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>

  Sure, I can agree with all of this too. What I was attempting to point
  though is that lock tokens by themselves don't do anything unless the
  concurrent client applications do something with them. That is, having
  lock tokens by the same principal using concurrent applications is like
  having no lock token at all. Either application, having a shared lock
  can do its update and overwrite the other.

So can totally different principals.  This argument is not unique
to the issue of the same principal holding multiple locks on the same
resource.  I believe that was the issue we were trying to resolve.
More in a sec...

  Its the one lock token scenario
  that works, but only if the client applications are aware of how they got
  the lock token, so they know there is a possibility that some other
  application has one too.

Actually not much really works for shared *write* locks.  Not without the
clients identifying each other to insure that they get along with the
other lockers, cooperating with the other lockers, and coordinating via
another mechanism.  I consider shared write locks to be a poor example of
what shared locks can do but some other folks might find they offer an
opportunity to develop their own cooperative locking schemes.

As I said, I personally don't value shared write locks, but if someone
values them
between separate principal's, then they should also value them between
applications using the same authentication credentials.  There is no

I feel shared *read* locks are more valuable, and  allowing independent
parts of the same prinicple create separate locks works very well for
read locks and saves client code that would be necessary to work around
this if the server limitted things to one lock per principal.

And if some servers adopt Geoff's redirected locatable lock proposal (and
even if they don't).  A separate locatable lock class could
be invented whose only purpose is to track the location of a resource.
would also work very well if multiple independent applications using the
credentials were allowed to create locks.  And without allowing multiple
by the same principal, they couldn't work reliably.

I don't know what other types of locks might be invented in the future, but
the general rules seems to be
that multiple independent applications using the same credentials should be
allowed to create *shared*
locks on the same resource.

<tangent>Although authentication is useful for ACL's, the authentication
part of the
locking support at this point only seems to be to insure that someone isn't
submitting someone else's token.
And in fact this whole locking system could work just fine with everyone
using the *same* credentials if no one
shared their tokens and the server didn't reveal them within the lock
discovery process.  (Servers appear to
have this option in 2518.)</tangent>

<tangent 2>
BTW, the locatable lock class I mentioned above is kind of interesting for
depth locks.  It gives you a way,
with URI protection, to declare that no resources can be removed from a
collection, but folks can add
resources to a collection.  This is unlike write locking the collection
because locking a collection blocks both
the addition and the removal of resources.  And depending if the depth
locking is dynamic or not also adds an
interesting twist to the semantics.  If dynamic, once added, it can't be
removed by other folks.  If static. other
principals can remove resources they've added.
Received on Friday, 29 October 1999 15:18:09 GMT

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