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

Re: new proposed text for locking overview

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:48:12 +0200
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9BEE2A02.2B49946B-ONC1256ECA.007C64F1-C1256ECA.007D4500@us.ibm.com>
Jason: The analogy with properties is not very close, because in WedDAV,
the URI identifies a "property type", not an "instance of a property", so
there would be ambiguity about the term "property resource", since the 
correct
interpretation is the former, i.e. the property URI identifies a property
type, while folks are likely to confuse this with the state of a 
particular
property.  There is no such ambiguity for a lock.

But I'm not wedded to the idea of calling a lock a resource, so maybe
it would be simplest to just say:

----------------------------------------

2.5 Status of a lock
    A lock is identified by a URI (the lock token URI) but in general, it
    not have a HTTP URL, and thus can not be directly manipulated using
    HTTP methods.  Instead, this specification defines the new methods
    LOCK (creating and refreshing locks, see Section 4) and UNLOCK
    (removing locks, see Section 5) that act indirectly on locks.

-----------------------------------------

Since I believe this is the only section that refers to the "resourceness"
of a lock, we can avoid the contention while keeping all the good stuff in
the later paragraphs.

Cheers,
Geoff

p.s. But just for the record, a lock really is a resource (:-).


Julian wrote on 07/06/2004 08:10:23 PM:
>
> I noticed that RFC2518 historically says little about what a lock 
> actually *is*, instead just describes it's behaviour (which of course 
> needs to be done is well). The result is that essential information if 
> spread across the document; instead of being in a single place. A good 
> example for this is if you look at the various places in RFC2518 that 
> say something about what a timeout is, what it means to refresh it, when 

> the server needs to respect it and so on...
> 
> Here's what I wrote for 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-
> latest.html#rfc.section.2> 
> (which continues to progress nicely)...:
> 
> --
> 
> 2.5  Status of a lock
> 
>     Having a URI (the lock token URI) on it's own, a lock is a resource
>     in the sense defined by [RFC2396].  In general, this resource does
>     not have a HTTP URL, and thus can not be directly manipulated using
>     HTTP methods.  Instead, this specification defines the new methods
>     LOCK (creating and refreshing locks, see Section 4) and UNLOCK
>     (removing locks, see Section 5) that act indirectly on locks.
> 
>     A lock has state that can be indirectly observed by using the
>     DAV:lockdiscovery property defined in Section 3.2.  At a minimum, 
the
>     state of a lock consists of the items defined in the sections below.
>     After lock creation, all parts of the state with the exception of 
the
>     timeout value are immutable.
> 
> 2.5.1  Lock Access Type
> 
>     At present, this specification only defines one lock access type, 
the
>     "write" lock defined in Section xx.
> 
> 2.5.2  Lock Scope
> 
>     A lock has either exclusive or shared scope (see Section 2.1).
> 
> 2.5.3  Lock Root
> 
>     A lock is created as effect of a LOCK (creation) method request. The
>     lock root is the URL to which this request was adressed.
> 
> 2.5.4  Lock Depth
> 
>     A "depth 0" lock only affects the resource to which the LOCK request
>     was adressed to (the lock root).  This resource is said to be
>     "directly locked" by the lock.
> 
>     On the other hand, a "depth infinity" lock on a collection
>     additionally affects all members of that collection.  These 
resources
>     are said to be "indirectly locked" by the lock.  A "depth infinity"
>     lock on a non-collection resource behaves exactly the same way as a
>     "depth 0" lock.
> 
> 2.5.5  Lock Owner
> 
>     Clients can submit information about the lock owner when creating a
>     lock.  This information should be sufficient for either directly
>     contacting a principal (such as a telephone number or email URI), or
>     for discovering the principal (such as the URL of a homepage).
> 
>     Owner information is kept with the lock so that it can be returned 
in
>     the DAV:lockdiscovery property upon request.  Note that this
>     information is entirely client-controlled, thus a server MUST store
>     the information faithfully just like if it appeared in a WebDAV dead
>     property (see [RFC2518], section 4).
> 
> 2.5.6  Lock Timeout
> 
>     In general, a lock expires after a certain amount of time.  This 
time
>     can be specified in the LOCK creation request (however servers are
>     not required to honor this request).
> 
>     If the timeout expires then the lock may be lost.  Specifically, if
>     the server wishes to harvest the lock upon time-out, the server
>     SHOULD act as if an UNLOCK method was executed by the server on the
>     resource using the lock token of the timed-out lock, performed with
>     its override authority.  Thus logs should be updated with the
>     disposition of the lock, notifications should be sent, etc., just as
>     they would be for an UNLOCK request.
> 
>     The timers used for timeout expiry can be reset by the client by
>     submitting a LOCK refresh request.
> 
>     Servers are advised to pay close attention to the values submitted 
by
>     clients, as they will be indicative of the type of activity the
>     client intends to perform.  For example, an applet running in a
>     browser may need to lock a resource, but because of the instability
>     of the environment within which the applet is running, the applet 
may
>     be turned off without warning.  As a result, the applet is likely to
>     ask for a relatively small timeout value so that if the applet dies,
>     the lock can be quickly harvested.  However, a document management
>     system is likely to ask for an extremely long timeout because its
>     user may be planning on going off-line.
> 
>     A client MUST NOT assume that just because the time-out has expired
>     the lock has been lost.  Clients MUST assume that locks may
>     arbitrarily disappear at any time, regardless of the value given in
>     the Timeout header.  The Timeout header only indicates the behavior
>     of the server if "extraordinary" circumstances do not occur.  For
>     example, an administrator may remove a lock at any time or the 
system
>     may crash in such a way that it loses the record of the lock's
>     existence.
> 
> --
> 
> Feedback appreciated,
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 18:48:56 GMT

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