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

Re: Call for consensus on UNLOCK Request-URI being lock root

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:45:04 -0700
Message-ID: <40EAC900.3080809@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jason Crawford wrote:

> On Monday, 07/05/2004 at 01:16 ZE2, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > The problem with this approach is that it makes little sense in a
> > specification. If we say that servers SHOULD allow refresh against
> > indirectly locked resources, it doesn't make sense to tell clients not
> > to use it.
> I think it does make sense from the perspective of flexibility, and 
> we've done it before, but I don't have a strong preference.  My 
> stronger preference is that we move forward.   

I agree with Jason: servers SHOULD allow refresh against indirectly 
locked resources, thereby allowing for clients the option to refresh the 
lock on a single resource while letting the lock expire on other 
resources. Without supporting this, the client would have to unlock and 
the lock the resource, thereby making it possible for another client to 
lock the resource in the interim.

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 11:45:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:30 UTC