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 20:17:04 -0800
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFC62E40.65802%fluffy@cisco.com>

Perhaps you could explain how one gets multiple bindings when not using an
XML database? 


On 12/14/05 6:33 PM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Geoff 
>  
> 
> 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 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 04:22:28 GMT

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