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

Re: new proposed text for locking overview

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:19:22 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>
Cc: WebDAV <nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com>
Message-ID: <OF7A94C828.2C4107EC-ON85256EC9.006DC76E-85256EC9.006FA4EF@us.ibm.com>
On Tuesday, 07/06/2004 at 09:37 ZE2, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Jason Crawford wrote:
> > ...
> > I don't like us calling a lock a resource.
> > ...
> > The other paragraphs you included seem reasonable.
> So can you explain *why* you don't like that terminology?

I'll try...

Because we tend to tend to think of words the way we've used them even if 
they technically have a more generic definition.   A lock seems to not 
behave like what we typically refer to as a resource.  There doesn't seem 
to be a lot of overlap in their most important features and methods.

You mentioned that a lock has a URI.   I think of the lock-token 
identifying the lock, but the fact that it uses URI-like syntax is only 
coincidental to me.

If a lock is a resource, I'd expect to be able to substitute the word 
"resource" for "lock" and have it sound reasonable.  I'm comfortable 
saying that a lock acts on a resource, but I'd not be comfortable saying a 
 resource acts on a resource.  Similarly... "depth-resource", "exclusive 
resource", or "write resource".   I'd prefer to simply think of resources 
as something that locks act upon.

For me it feels better not to define a lock at all beyond it's behavior 
rather than to say it's a resource.

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 16:19:42 UTC

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