W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: lock-null's Still Locked after MKCOL or PUT conversion?

From: John Reese <john.reese@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:50:56 -0800
Message-ID: <488030720501281650450266cb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:37:51 +0100, Julian Reschke
<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> John Baumgarten wrote:
> >
> > All-
> >
> > I've searched through the mail archives and 2518 and 2518bis-06, so
> > forgive me if this is a well-known issue.
> >
> > After a lock-null has been converted to a either a collection or
> > "regular" resource via a MKCOL or PUT, respectively, should the
> > resulting resource still be locked?
> 
> In RFC2518: yes. That's the whole point.
> 
> In RFC2518bis: the concept doesn't exist anymore. LOCK to an unmapped
> URL creates an empty and locked (non-collection) resource.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

And what happens if you MOVE or COPY a resource onto a lock-null
resource (in RFC 2518)?  I found this hard to deduce based from the
RFC.

In 2518bis, I guess I have the same question -- on the new, empty,
locked resource, a PUT to overwrite the content retains the LOCK.  But
do locks remain if a resource is overwritten by a MOVE or COPY?
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2005 00:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT