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

Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:23:50 -0800
Message-Id: <86e9592f155eafa24db8a8931c19cad5@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 16, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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?
Because that was the rough consensus at the Interop that year, amongst 
the people there, and I don't want to overthrow that too lightly.  As 
soon as Cullen declares that there's a consensus for a single 
mechanism, I'll edit the spec according to the consensus.

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 17:24:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:33 UTC