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

Re: a Grand Unified Locking Proposal (GULP, or perhaps, GULP! :-)

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:32:36 -0500
To: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
cc: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256865.007BDF15.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>

Ah... Eric's note brings up another possibility.  It might be a red
herring, but as Geoff's
proposal is currently written (and Eric's too I think) it still is a
possibly unexpected behavior.

User B  locks /a/b/ exclusively.

User D tries to do a shared lock on /a/b/c/d.html but fails because in the
proposal that
will also create a lock (or will it?) on /a/b/ which already has an
exclusive lock on it.

I'm not saying this is good or bad.  I'm just pointing it out as what
sounds like a difference
in the recent proposals relative to what we were proposing a month or more
ago.

Jason.
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2000 17:33:27 GMT

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