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

On Monday, 03/03/2003 at 04:24 EST, "Clemm, Geoff"
<nngclemm___at___Rational.Com@smallcue.com> wrote:
> 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.

I suppose that covers it.  Hopefully the reader understands the situations
that
that covers.

One question though... does it have to be a write-lock?  I suspect
this precondition even applies to non-write locks.

Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 16:36:59 UTC