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

RE: Infinite depth locks and unlocking

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:15:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8AB82@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
The problem with not saying where the lock is, is that the 
lock token doesn't need to be a URL (i.e. it might not be
something you can send a HTTP request to).  So you need
to send the UNLOCK request to a resource that is guaranteed
to understand it, which for sure is the locked URL, and
almost for sure is any child of the locked URL (since all 
those children are affected by the Depth:infinity lock).


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:16 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: WebDAV
Subject: RE: Infinite depth locks and unlocking

If this were added, it would be reasonable to require a client
to issue the UNLOCK against the locked URL.  The alternative is to allow
the UNLOCK to be applied to any URL that identifies a resource that is
affected by the lock.  I could live with that, if the working group prefers
it, but I prefer the "must unlock the locked URL" approach.
I'd even be comfortable with the approach that you don't even have to say
where the lock is.  The lock is supposed to be globally unique.  And if the
client wants to verify that it understands where the lock is, it could use
an IF header.  (Actually right now the IF header is used for UNLOCK, but
changing that is on the issues list.)   Of course if we feel the *server*
*always* needs to verify the client's knowledge of the lock location, I can
live with that too.

Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 13:05:54 UTC

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