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


From: Ilya Kirnos <ilya.kirnos@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:58:45 -0700
Message-ID: <3B6610D5.92C83A69@oracle.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> 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
> 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.

I agree: my first choice would  be for abandoning the concept of a null
lock, but if people feel strongly they should be kept, the semantics
should be changed to allow the server to create an actual file to track
the lock.

Among other things, this allows other protocols to have at least a shot
at playing nice with DAV locks.  This point (interoperability with other
protocols) has been brought up a couple of times in this discussion
already, and is an important consideration for the server I'm working on
(Oracle iFS), and I suspect for others as well.  It can't just be

Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 21:57:54 UTC

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