Re: Write Locks on Collections

From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>

> At 11:35 AM 11/24/99 -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> >... 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.
> 
> internal members, as opposed to those added by, say, BIND?

As opposed to members that are not internal members (where an internal
member is as it is defined in rfc2518).  For example, /a/b and /a/c are
internal members of /a, while /a/b/x and /a/c/y are members of /a but are
not internal members of /a.

Cheers,
Geoff