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: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:33:40 -0500
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3F27B658.BBC71B32-ON852570D8.000D814E-852570D8.000E10FB@us.ibm.com>
I'm not aware of XML providing a mechanism for defining multiple bindings
to the same resource, so I don't see how an XML database implementation
bears on this discussion.


Cullen wrote on 12/14/2005 07:20:12 PM:
> 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 
> Perhaps that would just not be a legal way to implement it. I'm not 
> 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 
> would result in this model.
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 02:33:41 UTC

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