# RE: are depth 0 locks inherited by newly created children?

From: David M. Chandler <5chandlers@home.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:02:42 -0800
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101bf3b09\$47e3f750\$d6f00218@c786448-a.cdrrpd1.ia.home.com>
```> Is any one else on this list paying any attention to this?
> Or is it just
> the five of us?

Well, since you asked, yes, someone else is paying attention. For clarity, I
think 7.5 should specify a depth infinity lock if that is in fact what the
authors intended (I don't know whether that might be true). As far as the
locks, I propose the following scenario. Please forgive me if this is
obviously wrong. Suppose the following hierarchies of resources:

a/
a/b
a/b/d/
a/b/d/q
a/b/d/r

c/
c/j
c/k

Suppose a/b/ is write-locked depth 0. My understanding is that a/b/d and its
members are not locked at this point.

Now suppose we move collection /c with its members under /a/b, as in the
example of 7.5. Now we have

a/
a/b
a/b/c/
a/b/c/j
a/b/c/k
a/b/d/
a/b/d/q
a/b/d/r

If we interpret 7.5 to mean that the write-locks are inherited even for
depth 0, then /a/b/c becomes locked, but /a/b/d is not locked, which seems
inconsistent to me because the lock has developed memory--pre-existing
internal members are not locked, but newly-added ones are.

Furthermore, what about new members of /a/b/c? Wouldn't /a/b/c/x and
/a/b/c/y inherit the depth-0 write-lock from /a/b/c while /a/b/c/j and
/a/b/c/k remain unlocked? It's the same case, just another level down. I
think you could end up with a depth-0 lock locking some resources down to
depth infinity by virtue of the fact they were added after /a/b/ was locked.

Or I'm just completely lost, which is a real possibility.

> Look, I quote 7.5
>
>    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.  This is the only
>    mechanism that allows a resource to be added to a write lock.  Thus,
for
>    example, if the collection /a/b/ is write locked and the resource /c
>    is moved to /a/b/c then resource /a/b/c will be added to the write
lock.
>
> It does not say "locked depth infinity" it just says "locked".

David Chandler
```
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:59:06 UTC

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