W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: GULP (version 4)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:20:40 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGENKFIAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Lisa,

> Yes.  I'm saying that even if we define what the state of a resource is,
> servers will handle things differently and clients will constantly have
> to reissue requests in order to get the right lock tokens.

Why that? If we get the clarification right, the only issue would be
non-conforming implementations. And obviously there's no way we can
guarantee interoperability if implementations do not comply with the spec.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:40 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: GULP (version 4)
>
>
>

>
> lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:24 AM
> > To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> > Subject: RE: GULP (version 4)
> >
> > Lisa,
> >
> > please re-read my mail.
> >
> > I was saying that we need to define what the state of a resource is.
> >
> > In particular its
> >
> > - content
> > - internal members (depth 0 lock on collections)
> > - dead properties
> > - locks
> > - *some* live properties (such as DAV:label) -- this is where it'll
> get
> > hairy, I guess
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:20 PM
> > > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> > > Subject: RE: GULP (version 4)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "If a request would modify the state of a resource, the request
> MUST
> > > fail
> > > > unless the lock-token for that lock is specified in the request."
> > >
> > > This isn't much more specific than the current "is affected by"
> > > language.  It leaves it entirely up to the server to decide what
> > > modifying the state of a resource is.  Does modifying membership
> count?
> > > (Is modifying membership blocked by a depth 0 lock?)  Does modifying
> > > property values count?
> > >
> > > This is exactly where clients have had problems submitting simple
> > > requests to server implementations that each have a different idea
> what
> > > resources have state modified by the request.
> > >
> > > lisa
> > >
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 17:21:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT