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

Re: Write Locks on Collections

From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:26:13 +0100
Message-Id: <4.1.19991123232148.00b0b440@pop.xs4all.nl>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
At 04:19 PM 11/23/99 -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
>   From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@xythos.com>
>   Re 7.5
>   A write lock on a collection, whether created by a "Depth: 0" or "Depth:
>   infinity" lock request, prevents the addition or removal of member URIs of
>   the collection by non-lock owners.

>   If a lock owner causes the URI of a resource to be added as an internal
>   member URI of a locked collection then the new resource MUST be
>   automatically added to the lock.
>I believe this statement should only apply to non-Depth:0 locks.

Why do you believe this?

>Otherwise, this results in the inability to independently lock
>a collection and members of the collection.  

How so?  please provide a sequence of operations that would be impossible
under this interpretation.

>   What does this mean when a collection is locked via a Depth 0 lock:
>   1)  When a new resource is added to the collection, the resource is added
>   without a lock as the parent has only a Depth 0 lock.
>That's what I believe it should mean.
>   2)  When a new resource is added to the collection, the resource is added
>   and inherits the lock from above (via the second paragraph above)
>That would be a very bad thing, if the collection lock is depth:0.

Why would it be bad?  What bad thing would occur, or what good thing would
be prevented?

sorry, but I just can't invent one my self.

best regards

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 17:28:31 UTC

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