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

RE: Creating a lock-null in a locked collection

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <7DE119D3D0E15543874F7561EECBDBED0261A016@BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoff said: "It sometimes acts like a resource (modifies the parent
collection), and sometimes does not (returns a 404 when you GET it)."

In HTTP, as I understand it, one sends a method to a resource identified by
a URI. As such any response one gets must have come from a resource.
Therefore a 404 must be issued by a resource. This is why the object model I
suggested for WebDAV has the universal NULL resource that handles things
such as issuing 404s. As such how can one say that because a resource issues
a 404 it is not acting like a resource?

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 7:35 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Creating a lock-null in a locked collection
> 
> 
> 
>    From: Joe Orton <joe@orton.demon.co.uk>
> 
>    ... It just seemed slightly weird, that if you LOCK or UNLOCK a
>    lock-null resource, you are modifying the state of the 
> parent collection;
>    when if you do the same to a normal resource, you are not.
> 
> Yes, that is one of the reasons I strongly object to the notion of a
> "lock null resource".  It sometimes acts like a resource (modifies the
> parent collection), and sometimes does not (returns a 404 when you GET
> it).  This makes it very hard to predict what its behavior should be
> whenever you extend the protocol (i.e. should it act like a resource,
> or act like not a resource).  For example:
> 
> - the BIND protocol (can you "BIND" a lock null resource to
>   another URL?)
> - the versioning protocol (do you have to checkout a 
> versioned collection
>   in order to add a lock null resource to it?)
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
Received on Monday, 3 January 2000 13:36:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:53 GMT