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

Re: locking clarifications/extensions vs BIND draft vs RFC2518bis

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:55:35 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD72A02C8.3CD18169-ON85256E33.005BBC6E-85256E33.005CEFB7@us.ibm.com>

I agree with Julian.  Implementing locking properly is not a trivial
task, and there will always be fine-grained resources for which locking
is not appropriate on a server that supports locking.  Interoperable
clients need to understand that locking may not be provided on all
servers, or on all resources on a server.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 02/07/2004 03:31:56 AM:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > Here's another idea.  What if we made locking required in the next
> > version of WebDAV?  Servers that support RFC2518 can always claim 
> > support for RFC2518 without changes but most servers support locking
> > anyway and wouldn't find this difficult.  For clients of course it's
> > no change at all.  Then WebDAV core would have almost no options.
> 
> I think *that's' a bad idea. There are lots of servers that do not allow 

> locking, or that do allow locking, but not on all resources.  Let's make 

> things simpler, not more complicated.
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2004 11:55:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC