W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Status code for creating lock-null resource

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:03:56 +0100
To: "'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <80256A6C.003D4A67.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


"Hall, Shaun" <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com> wrote:
> 1) Obviously it would go against the definition in
> RFC 2616 for 201 Created.
> 2) You haven't actually created a resource. An LNR doesn't
> physically exist, you've only reserved the "name". You have
> created a lock, but that is not the same thing.

Arrgh, where did this idea that a resource must "physically exist" come
from??

In what sense does  http://foo.com/cgi-bin/quote?myportfolio,yesterday  (or
whatever) 'physically exist'?

A 201 Created response looks like the ideal response for the creation of a
lock-null resource.  I did not read anything in RFC2616 to contradict that.

> 3) Doesn't make sense to me to get a "201 Created" response
> for a successful LNR, then if you tried to DELETE or GET it
> for example, get a 404 or 405 (as per RFC 2518 sec 7.4).
> 4) Might break existing applications etc.
>
> Alternatively, a client could perform one of a number of
> actions to discover that the resource didn't exist before
> they attempt to LOCK it (create the LNR) and get a 404.

Lock-null resources are generally bad and should have been strangled at
birth.

> Side notes - results when creating an LNR with:
>
> 5) mod_dav pre v1.0 (think v0.9.16) returns a 200 OK response.
> 6) IIS 5.0 (on Win2K) returns a 201 Created response.

Tim
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:19:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT