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

Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks.

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:50:44 +0100
Message-ID: <41D1B914.9070002@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: "WebDAV WG))'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I don't consider that this issue is resolved or fixed.  Here's what I  
> asked for in the bug text:
> " - when a resource with bindings A, B is locked via a LOCK request to  
> A, what
> MUST the contents of the lockdiscovery property look like for both A  
> and B?
>  - when a resource with bindings A, B is locked via a LOCK request to  
> A, how
> MUST the server respond to an UNLOCK request to B?"
> I would like to have requirements on the server behavior in these  
> cases, because otherwise it will be very likely for server implementors  
> to do slightly different things.

The questions have been answered in 

"- the value of the DAV:lockdiscovery property will be the same, as both 
bindings refer to the same resource, and the lock is on the resource 
(RFC2518, section 13.8)

- UNLOCK removes the lock identified by the lock token from the resource
identified by the request-URI (and all other resources included in the 
lock), so again, it doesn't matter to which binding the UNLOCK is 
applied (section 8.11)"

As far as I can tell there was no working group consensus of adding LOCK 
semantics discussion into BIND.

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 19:51:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:31 UTC