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

Re: Write Locks on Collections

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:35:06 -0500
Message-Id: <9911241635.AA09030@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, 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.
   > 
   > I believe it says "internal member".

   Nope. It just says "member".

Greg is correct.  I must have been been misled by what I *wanted* it
to say.  But the next sentence in 7.5 says:

   As a consequence,
   when a principal issues a PUT or POST request to create a new
   resource under a URI which needs to be an internal member of a write
   locked collection to maintain HTTP namespace consistency, or issues a
   DELETE to remove a resource which has a URI which is an existing
   internal member URI of a write locked collection, this request MUST
   fail if the principal does not have a write lock on the collection.

which leads one to believe that the intent was to talk about internal
members.  In any case, whatever the original intent may have been,
I would propose that the statement in question be modified to explicitly
state "internal member", since depth:0 locks should only affect the
addition and removal of internal members.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 11:35:22 GMT

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