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

Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:16:15 +0100
Message-ID: <437B695F.5050404@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I agree there's a fair argument for allowing servers not to put lock 
> tokens in lockdiscovery all the time. I can clarify the text there 
> because there certainly isn't a consensus to require servers to do that.
> 
> We could, however, treat the LOCK (create lock) response slightly 
> differently, and require that the body contains the lockdiscovery 
> property *including* the new lock token -- a special case to handle 
> those clients that had problems at Interop tests.

This does not make any sense. Sorry.

It's the "Lock-Token" response header that *always* contains the result. 
Why do you insist on changing the spec so that there's a second mechanism?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 17:17:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT