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: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:27:15 -0500
Message-Id: <10001150627.AA23587@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
   From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>

   Why are you still allowing the "lock-null" approach (now renamed as the
   dummy namespace lock)?  I thought one of the goals of GULP was to get rid of
   that horrible concept.

Actually, it is the "lock null resource" concept that I strenuously
object to, not the concept that a lock can be on a target that does
not yet exist.

I believe being able to create a lock on a target that does not yet
exist is no worse/harder than namespace protection, so I would include
it in any proposal that includes namespace protection.

Also, the "grand unified" aspect of GULP was intended to allow us to
model everything that folks have been asking for, and then with that
in hand, we can decide which parts to defer (possibly indefinitely).

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2000 01:27:18 GMT

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