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

RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

From: Hall, Shaun <Shaun.Hall@GBR.XEROX.COM>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:59:59 +0100
Message-ID: <59697CCC6CE3D411B4CD00805FBB77672875F9@gbrwgcms03.wgc.gbr.xerox.com>
To: "'Ilya Kirnos'" <ilya.kirnos@oracle.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Bits snipped, all IMHO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilya Kirnos [mailto:ilya.kirnos@oracle.com]
> Sent: 31 July 2001 02:59
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC
> 
> 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.

I don't think LNRs should be changed at all.

You could use a file to track the lock if you wish and you won't be
deviating from the RFC.

The RFC doesn't place restrictions on implementation (in this case LNRs) -
you can basically use whatever you want, so why are you suggesting that the
semantics should be changed ?

Its an implementation problem, not a protocol problem.

> 
> 
> -ilya
> 

Regards

Shaun Hall
Xerox Europe
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 05:00:11 GMT

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