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

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

From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:36 -0800
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1100C870-4EAA-11D7-8A8F-000393751598@xythos.com>

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:50  PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e.
> defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing
> to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the
> binding draft.

Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more
explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful
about including some of GULP?

> Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write
> locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks
> may have some day.
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 20:30:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:27 UTC