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

RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:26:14 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKEEMECPAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
For me, an addition to the Status Codes (currently Sec. 8.10.7)
would suffice. A la

201 (Created) - The lock request succeeded by creating a new resource
and the value of the lockdiscovery property is included in the body.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:12 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC
>
>
>
>
>
> It sounds like we all agree with Geoff's wording.
>
> Lisa did make an interesting observation below though.
>
> <<
> This means that LOCK can return 201, which is important to distingusih
> between LOCK of an unmapped URL (I can go ahead and put my content) and
> LOCK
> of URL that somebody else just created (I should NOT send my
> content before
> checking).
> >>
>
> Do we want to enhance Geoff's explanation or add a comment along the lines
> of Lisa's observation?   Or just make sure we mention 201 where we list
> potential error codes for LOCK requests?
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 04:26:43 GMT

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