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

[Bug 54] New: Locks vs multiple bindings

From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:22:03 -0800
Message-Id: <200411271422.iAREM3xl016020@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54

           Summary: Locks vs multiple bindings
           Product: WebDAV-RFC 2518-bis
           Version: -06
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
                    auth/2004JulSep/0156.html
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: 06.  Locking
        AssignedTo: joe-bugzilla@cursive.net
        ReportedBy: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
                CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org


I appreciate the clarification on locking. Currently it says:

    6.8  Locks and Multiple Bindings

    A resource may be made available through more than one URI.  However
    locks apply to resources, not URIs.  Therefore a LOCK request on a
    resource MUST NOT succeed if can not be honored by all the URIs
    through which the resource is addressable.

This is a bit misleading as indeed the lock is on the resource, but it 
*protects* the URL through which the lock was created. Thus given URLs 
"a" and "b" identifying the same resource which was locked through "a", 
I can apply DELETE to "b" without needing the lock token.

This seems to be another example why it would be A Good Thing to 
completely import GULP (see for instance 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/0177.html>) 
into the spec.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2004 14:22:04 UTC

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