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

Re: Issues remaining with Bind draft

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:24:55 -0500
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFF9933575.AF301A7E-ON85256E5C.0069DA11-85256E5C.006AA750@us.ibm.com>

How about for REBIND:

(DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element in the 
request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the request, 
that write-lock must have been deleted by the request.

And something similar for UNBIND.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 03/19/2004 09:11:47 AM:

> >>>>>Does REBIND destroy locks, as MOVE does? It shouldn't, unless 
> >>>>>there's  a compelling reason for backward compatibility.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it should. REBIND is a "strong" MOVE (that will never attempt a 
> >>>>"weak" resource move using COPY/DELETE). That's the only semantical 
> >>>>difference to MOVE, and thus locks behave just like they do with 
> > 
> > I agree with Julian that locking semantics require this behavior, and 
I
> > agree that it would be reasonable to add this as an explicit 
> > post-condition
> > of the REBIND method.  We would then need to add a similar 
post-condition 
> > to
> > the UNBIND method.
>  > ..
> 
> Can you suggest a specific text?
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 14:25:33 UTC

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