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

RE: rfc2518 issue: LOCK_NULL_STATUS_CREATION

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:56:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F4875D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Note that Jim's objection was not in the new context,
in which the LOCK on an unmapped URL creates a regular
resource.  I am sure Jim will withdraw his
objection in this new context (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ellison [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:22 AM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: LOCK_NULL_STATUS_CREATION


BTW: Jim W. objected when I made this suggestion a couple of months ago.
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001AprJun/0302.html)

He is, of course, free to change his mind<g>

Regards,
Tim

Jason wrote:
> I'm marking the following issue:
>
> What status code should be returned when a lock null
> resource is created ? 200 OK or 201 Created? A related
> issue is what status code should be returned by a PUT
> or MKCOL on a lock-null resource? MKCOL is defined to
> be 201, PUT could be 200 or 201 (201 seems like a
> slightly better choice).
>
> ...as resolved by our apparent consensus on the addition
> of the following wording for a status code for LOCK requests...
>
> 201 (Created) - The lock request succeeded by creating a
> new resource and the value of the lockdiscovery property
> is included in the body.
>
>
> Discussion in the thread that includes the following
> posting by Stefan...
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0129.html
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 09:47:02 GMT

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