W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Puzzle: DELETE of a locked collection

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:36:16 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-ID: <852568C1.00035D18.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>


<greg>
*) if a tagged-list state-list specifies a URL and its locktoken, then the
   state-list will be applied to the internal members (to the extend of
   the lock depth). this will effectively replicate the state list down to
   all affected members.
   (any existing tagged-list for an internal member will override this
    implied state-list)
</greg>
<jra>
I think this is a bad thing as it will result in lots of confusion about
what token is supposed to match with what resource. It is possible that
this will result in overwrite conflicts when applied to depth locks on
collections.

I think the If header does work as I suggested in a previous email. You'll
have to know the members that are to be targeted by the tag list ahead of
time, and suffer the inconvenience of putting them all in a potentially
long If header, but computers are good at handling such things. It might
also not be such a bad idea to know exactly, and proactively, what you're
doing when dealing with locked resources.

But I'm happy to use the Lock-Token header for lock tokens too. I think it
will have similar problems though. The problem is really with those pesky
depth locks.
</jra>
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 20:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:54 GMT