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: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:12:18 -0800
Message-Id: <fe16d267d50cb60b59fd3c1b82fd0a18@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:06 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
>> Now Lisa proposed a model for locking slightly different than GULP  
>> which
>> would, by my understanding, would allow an implementation like GULP  
>> but
>> would also allow implementation like the one I just described to also  
>> be
>> compliant. For a server that supported BIND, it would probably have  
>> to be a
>> GULP like implementation.
>
> I'll assume you're referring to  
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/ 
> 1282.html>?
>
> Which reads:
>
> LD> One could imagine the lock applying to the resource and to all its
> LD> bindings, considering  the bindings to be part of the state of the
> LD> resource.  If I recall, I think this is the model I'd always  
> assumed
> LD> until GULP.  With this model, if A and B are bindings to a  
> resource,
> LD> and a LOCK token to A is successful, then for the duration of the  
> lock
> LD> the token is required to change either A or B.
>
> This implies that a binding is part of the state of the resource, and  
> I think both RFC2518 and RFC3744 are very clear that it's not. Namely,  
> in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.7.5>:

No, that's not a correct conclusion.  This model only implies that all  
bindings are covered by the LOCK as well as the resource itself.  The  
resource state is still the resource state and that doesn't include  
*any* bindings.

It's actually very similar to the model proposed in GULP.  In that  
model, the LOCK covers one binding as well as the resource.  The GULP  
model does not imply that the locked binding is part of the state of  
the resource either.  What a lock covers is a separate concept from  
what a resource state includes.

Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 18:12:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT