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: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:20:12 -0800
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFC5F6BC.65776%fluffy@cisco.com>

On 12/14/05 2:17 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> One could imagine the lock applying to the resource and to all its
>> bindings, considering  the bindings to be part of the state of the
>> resource.  If I recall, I think this is the model I'd always assumed
> Well, I'm not aware of a single server that supports multiple bindings
> to one resource, but which considers bindings as part of the state of
> the resource. Do you?

I was just sort of thinking, if one implemented a server using a XML
database, and one used the database locks to implement the DAV LOCK, it
seems like you would end up with the lock locking the resource not the URI.
Perhaps that would just not be a legal way to implement it. I'm not making
an argument one way or another, I was just sort of pondering this and
wondering if my assumption that using the database lock to implement LOCK
would result in this model.
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 00:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:34 UTC