W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

What is actually locked?

From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:04:31 +0200
Message-Id: <120DA31A-8734-11D8-AB6C-000A95B2B926@cisco.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Julian wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> A - Issues relating to 2518 features
>> 1. Can you UNLOCK a URI that binds to a locked resource, when that URI
>> wasn't directly locked? If not, what's the error?
>
> I can't see any language in RFC2518 and/or BIND saying that you can't,
> so you can. UNLOCK removes the lock identified by the lock token header
> from the resource identified by the request URI, so the actual URI 
> being
> used for UNLOCK is irrelevant.
>
>> 2. Can you LOCK a URI that binds to a locked resource, when that URI
>> wasn't directly locked? If not, what's the error?
>
> You can, as long both locks are compatible (that is, none of them is
> exclusive). So the situation here is exactly as if you use the same
> request URI.

To me the above show some communication issues. It continues:

>> 3. In If header evaluation, does a URI "match" a lock token, when that
>> URI wasn't directly locked but the underlying resource was locked with
>> that token?
>
> The If header matching description
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.9.4.4>)
> talks about resources, not URIs, thus it's not relevant which URI you
> provide as long as it identifies the right resource.
>
>> 4. What exactly does lockdiscovery show on a locked binding? On a 
>> locked
>> resource accessed through an unlocked binding? Does 'lockdiscovery' 
>> look
>> exactly the same on every binding to a locked resource?
>
> Yes. The lock belongs to the state of the resource, so PROPFIND returns
> the same operation no matter which binding you use.
>
>> 5. What does creationdate refer to, I assume it's the creationdate of
>> the underlying resource (not the creation date of the binding)? If the
>
> Yes.
>
>> underlying resource, is there any way to tell when a binding was
>
> No.
>
>> created? and vice versa?

It seems Julian is talking about locking always being on the resource, 
regardless of what binding was used. This imply it is completely 
irrelevant what binding has happend, what URI is used etc to reach the 
resource. If the resource is locked it is.

Now, Lisa, you seem to either not agree with this view, or that the 
document doesn't specify this clearly enough.

Can you (Lisa) clarify?

    paf
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT