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

Re: Refreshing locks

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:22:08 -0700
To: Rickard Falk <rickard.falk@excosoft.se>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000711022208.Z29590@lyra.org>
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 10:32:05AM +0200, Rickard Falk wrote:
> When I'm about to refresh a lock, can I then send exactly the same request as I sent when I locked the resource? I've tried this
> with IIS-5 and Sharemation, but the response I get is '423 Locked'. The only things that differs are, the If header and any cookies
> that may have been set. According to the spec. I doesn't have to send exactly the same request, but it doesn't say that I can't.
> To get it to work I excluded the body of the lock request, as the spec. say's I can.
> 
> Chap 7.8 Refreshing Write Locks
> 'However, a client may submit a LOCK method with an If header but without a body. This form of LOCK MUST only be used to "refresh" a
> lock.'
> 
> Can I rely on that if I send the Lock request without the body, that all servers will see this as a Lock refresh?

Nope. You must supply the If: header which contains the locktokens of the
locks that you wish to refresh. You must also submit an empty body to
perform a refresh. If you supply a body, then the server will think you are
attempting to create a new lock; if either of the locks are exclusive, then
it will punt.

Similar to IIS5 and Sharemation, mod_dav (and Apache 2.0 :-) will return a
423 if you attempt to LOCK a resource without supplying the necessary If:
header and empty body on a refresh.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2000 05:20:01 GMT

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