<< The other issue, Geoff, is that people are using LOCK as a poor person's CHECKOUT, also assuming that LOCK's won't timeout. >> I agree. << The RFC2518 revision should clearly state that LOCKs aren't to be used for this purpose. >> ???? - I assume the purpose of locking is to avoid lost updates. What is the distinction between a "poor man's CHECKOUT" and "avoidance of the lost update problem"? In the absense of actual versioning, aren't they the same? J.Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 12:26:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT