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

Re: What is actually locked?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:30:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4071B3DA.3080406@gmx.de>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Patrik Fältström wrote:

 > ...
> 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.
> ...

Correct. IMHO this follows clearly from RFC2518 (specifically the 
introduction of locking (section 6) and write locks (section 7))...:

"The ability to lock a resource provides a mechanism for serializing 
access to that resource. Using a lock, an authoring client can provide a 
reasonable guarantee that another principal will not modify a resource 
while it is being edited. In this way, a client can prevent the "lost 
update" problem."

"A write lock MUST prevent a principal without the lock from 
successfully executing a PUT, POST, PROPPATCH, LOCK, UNLOCK, MOVE, 
DELETE, or MKCOL on the locked resource. All other current methods, GET 
in particular, function independently of the lock."

BTW: at some point in the previous discussions it was claimed that 
RFC2518 uses the terms "URI" and "resource" interchangeably, and thus 
there was no explicit distinction. I disagree with that point of view. 
If there are places where RFC2518 is sloppy in this regard, we should 
identify those and try to fix them in RFC2518bis.

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:38:13 GMT

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