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: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:10:55 +0100
Message-ID: <437EFA2F.6060506@gmx.de>
To: Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

Jim Luther wrote:
> 
> Our existing code only uses LOCK to (1) get a new exclusive lock and (2) 
> to refresh the exclusive locks we own. We parse the lockdiscovery 
> response for a lock-token in both cases. I looked through the various 
> versions of our code and I *think* that it wouldn't matter if the 
> lockdiscovery response were not returned in the LOCK refresh response, 
> but without a server to test against, I cannot be sure.
> 
> So I agree with Geoff, but would add the requirement of returning the 
> lockdiscovery response for a LOCK refresh because it would be useful for 
> the same reasons you'd want the lockdiscovery response when a lock is 
> created (to get the locktoken, timeout value, etc). This should not be a 
> lock privacy problem because the client has proved it knows about the 
> lock via the If header in the request.

...via the "Lock-Token" header in the request...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 10:11:51 GMT

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