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

Question for implementors: definition of Lock with bindings

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:02:15 -0800
Message-Id: <00282f8bf53f6b5e1efc4a2cb95d801b@osafoundation.org>
To: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, greg stein <gstein@lyra.org>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, Chris Sharp <csharp@apple.com>, Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>, Stanley Guan <stanley.guan@oracle.com>, Kevin Wiggen <kwiggen@xythos.com>


In the current proposed model of locking and binding (GULP -- several 
emails recently with pointers), it's defined that a lock covers the 
binding that the LOCK request that was sent to and the resource that 
the binding maps to.

Another possible definition of the scope of a lock could be that the 
lock would cover the resource that the binding maps to and ALL 
bindings.

One consequence of choosing between these two models is the cases in 
which DELETE of a locked resource requires the lock token.  According 
to the first definition, DELETE requires a lock token only if the 
locked binding is addressed; all other bindings can be removed without 
needing a lock token.  According to the second definition, DELETE of a 
locked resource always requires the lock token.

Please answer with your model preference and reasoning so that we can 
close this issue.  We'd particularly like to know if this affects an 
implementation -- an implementation that supports BIND, or has custom 
bindings through file system links (mod_dav?), or could otherwise be 
affected.

Thanks!
Lisa Dusseault
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 20:02:28 GMT

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