RE: Status code for creating lock-null resource

> b. If we're both trying to create and edit the same (new) resource,
> and my PUT precedes yours but my LOCK follows yours, then once I've
> obtained the LOCK I find that the etag on the resource is different
> than the one I got back from my PUT.  This is the canonical

I believe this can, and should, be solved with the consistent use of
"If-None-Match: *" in the PUT request, whenever a client is trying to create
a new resource.

> 2. Because there's no well-defined way for PUT to reliably create a
> no-content resource, which is the kind I claim you want to be
> creating when you're creating a new one but don't have content for it
> yet.  Most servers given a PUT of 0 length create a 0-length
> resource, which is quite a different thing than a no-content one.

Can you elaborate on how this is a different thing?  It might be just as
hard for servers to handle no-content resources (if they currently only
handle 0-length resources) as it is to support a lock-null resource.  At any
rate, I wouldn't support adding a completely new concept (no-content
resources) even if we did remove the lock-null concept.

lisa