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

Re: Write Locks on Collections

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:17:40 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911261113460.18236-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Jim Davis wrote:
> If I lock a collection with depth infinity lock, then create a new
> interrnal member of that collection  (e.g. with PUT) I have to provide the
> lock token to do the PUT, and the new internal member is added to the lock.
> We all agree on this, right?


> Now  suppose the lock were depth 0 not depth infinity.
> 1) to add a new internal member, I still have to provide the lock
> token, right?


> 2) Previously exising members are not affected.  I can PUT or PROPPATCH to
> them at my whim, right?


> 3) However, I can't DELETE them without the lock token, right?

Right. You must supply the locktoken because you are altering the
collection (on the theory that the set of names of internal members is
part of its state).

> So where we seem to disagree is:
> If I add a new internal member, is it added to the lock, or not? 

It is not.

> I interpret 7.5 as saying Yes.  You seem to think that the answer is, or
> should be, no.
> Can you please explain this?  I don't see how this depth 0 lock would
> prevent anyone from updating the state of existing members.

The depth:0 lock does not prevent people from updating existing members.
It prevents you from altering the collections state: the set of names of
internal members. Therefore, you cannot add or remove internal members.
This means you must supply a locktoken with PUT, MKCOL, or a DELETE. Note
that you shouldn't be able to create a locknull resource either(!) without
supplying a locktoken.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 14:17:42 UTC

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