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

Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:15:31 +0100
Message-ID: <43A08B73.9050209@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> Good question, and I'm not sure -- it depends what the consequences are 
> of assuming this distinction.  It seemed like a useful distinction until 
> it led to what, to me, were unexpected or undesired consequences.

Well. If not using this term, how do you distinguish between the 
resources that are actually locked, and the URLs that are protected? So 
for instance, with a

/a/b

being lcoked (through a LOCK request on /a/b), how do you describe the 
fact that the URL is protected by the lock (that is, you'll need a 
lock-token to MOVE /a itself)?

> Do any servers implement multiple URLs, locking and DELETE (regardless 
> of whether they support the exact model of BIND)?   If so, what do 
> existing implementations do?

Yes, we do, and of course we implement the model we discuss.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 21:17:11 GMT

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