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

Re: refresh LOCK for multiple locks

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:51:05 -0500
To: "Geoffrey Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256838.005C94F1.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>

Anyone that has a locking server or locking client (or knows of one) that
would be significantly affected by this alteration or by any other
locking changes, please send me a note or post it to this list.    I'll add
you to the locking mailing list.

I just like to make sure I have a complete list of servers/clients (with
email addresses) that are resistant to changes to locking due to
2518 compatibility issues and client base.

--- note from Geoff Clemm follows -----

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
> ... it seems somewhat odd that we use the IF header to determine
> what locks are to be refreshed.  I would think this should work just as
> does.  That's not to say people can't use an IF header, but that's not
> they specify which of the locks is to be refreshed.  The IF header would
> be for consistancy checking if the client wanted the refresh to be
> on the presence of a specified lock on some specified resource.

I agree with Jason (and others) that this would be the preferable way for
a lock refresh to work.

Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:19 UTC