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: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:01:37 +0100
Message-ID: <43A130F1.1010203@gmx.de>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 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.

If an implementor would expose database locks directly as WebDAV locks, 
then this would probably the case. However, that wouldn't be compliant 
to RFC2518.

> 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.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 09:03:24 GMT

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