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

GULP (Version 5.5)

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:32 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2CCF591D.135829B9-ON85256E0C.00150E0C-85256E0C.0016D14B@us.ibm.com>

Here's a new version of GULP, with the following changes:
- adjust wording to allow for a LOCK to request to just refresh
  an existing lock
- allow any mention of a lock token in an If header to be a
  "submission" of that lock token.

I believe this covers the specific issues raised by Lisa,
except for:

"Finally, this stuff doesn't address what happens to the other 
bindings of a locked resource - if they now appear as locked, 
which I would assume." 

I assume by "this stuff", Lisa is referring to the GULP specification.
Since I believe the current GULP text covers all of the cases
introduced by multiple bindings to the same resource, I'd need
a specific situation which is not covered by the current GULP
text before this can be considered a real issue.

WRT to Lisa's assumption (the other bindings are locked),
as Julian indicated, according to GULP that is incorrect,
i.e. only the mappings specified by the request-URL of
the LOCK are locked by the LOCK request.

Note: The GULP specification does not enumerate all of the
resources and bindings that are NOT affected by a LOCK request,
because there are an infinite number of these.  If a resource
or binding is not identified as being affected by the LOCK,
it is not affected by the LOCK.

Cheers,
Geoff


-------------- GULP (Version 5.5) --------------

- A lock either directly or indirectly locks a resource.

- When a LOCK request creates a new lock, and the resource identified
  by the request-URL is directly locked by that lock.  The
  "lock-root" of the new lock is the request-URL. If at the time of
  the request, the request-URL is not mapped to a resource, a new
  resource with no content MUST be created by the request.

- If a collection is directly locked by a depth:infinity lock, all
  members of that collection (other than the collection itself) are
  indirectly locked by that lock.  In particular, if an internal
  member resource is added to a collection that is locked by a
  depth:infinity lock, and if the resource is not locked by that lock,
  then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock.
  Conversely, if a resource is indirectly locked with a depth:infinity
  lock, and if the result of deleting an internal member URI is that
  the resource is no longer a member of the collection that is
  directly locked by that lock, then the resource is no longer locked
  by that lock.

- An UNLOCK request deletes the lock with the specified lock token.
  The request-URL of the request MUST identify a resource that
  is either directly or indirectly locked by that lock.
  After a lock is deleted, no resource is locked by that lock.

- A lock token is "submitted" in a request when it appears in an If
  header.

- If a request would modify the content for a locked resource, a dead
  property of a locked resource, a live property that is defined to be
  lockable for a locked resource, or an internal member URI of a
  locked collection, the request MUST fail unless the lock-token for
  that lock is submitted in the request.  An internal member URI
  of a collection is considered to be modified if it is added,
  removed, or identifies a different resource.

- If a request causes a directly locked resource to no longer be
  mapped to the lock-root of that lock, then the request MUST
  fail unless the lock-token for that lock is submitted in the
  request.  If the request succeeds, then that lock MUST have been
  deleted by that request.

- If a request would cause a resource to be locked by two different
  exclusive locks, the request MUST fail.
Received on Monday, 29 December 2003 23:10:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT