W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:24:18 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED6CB@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Good point!

I assume by "the binding being protected", you mean in the
case where the binding already exists, and the Overwrite:T
header is specifed?  If so, I agree that we need another
precondition to handle this.  How about:

(DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed): If the collection already contains a binding
with the specified path segment, and if that binding is protected by a
write-lock, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in an If request
header.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 4:01 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: WebDAV
Subject: RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)





On Monday, 03/03/2003 at 03:31 EST, "Clemm, Geoff"
<nngclemm___at___Rational.Com@smallcue.com> wrote:
> OK, since the bind protocol only introduces one
> new method, with simple behavior in the presence of
> locks, I'm happy to add the appropriate precondition
> to the BIND definition.  In particular, I propose to
> add the following precondition:
>
> (DAV:locked-update-allowed): if the collection identified by the
Request-URL
> is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in an If
> request header.
>
> Anyone object to this addition?

I don't object, but I feel if we do add this, we'll also have to list the
possibility
of the binding being protected by a lock in the subtree.   I think that
isn't covered
by the wording above.    I'm not sure if you want to reword this one or add
another
precondition.

J.
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 16:24:50 GMT

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