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


From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:34:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103B61DBD@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
   From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]

   > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
   > I'm not totally attached to the ability to turn a lock-null
   > resource into a collection, or make it disappear when unlocked.

   This summarizes also my ideas. WebDAV should stick to the LOCK behaviour
   of null-resources, when followed by a PUT. I think there are no interop
   problems when LOCK->MKCOL is discontinued or when the resource, created
   by a LOCK on a null-resource, stays after lock timeout.

   In fact, changing RFC2518 in this way, will make live for server
   implementors much easier and probably result in more compliant

This would be fine with me as well.  It basically says that if a LOCK
is applied to an unmapped URI, the LOCK is automatically preceded with
a PUT with a zero-length body.  As Stefan and Lisa say, having a
zero length resource remain when the LOCK is removed will not cause
a problem with existing clients, and clients that care about IIS already
cannot expect to be able to apply MKCOL to a "lock null" resource.

If we didn't already have clients that expected a LOCK on an unmapped
URI to succeed, I'd prefer to just say that the LOCK just returns 404
on an unmapped URI, but I can live with this compromise proposal.

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 02:26:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:23 UTC