Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

Julian wrote on 12/21/2005 09:54:11 AM:
> 
> Dan Brotsky wrote:
> > As to your last question: Yes it's OK and no the server needs to break
> > the lock if it does this (because it's indistinguishable from another
> > client's edit).  Not all clients will work efficiently against servers
> > that unexpectedly munge data after PUTs are complete but  that's life.
> 
> For the record: I think that linking the ETag behavior for PUT to the 
> fact whether the resource was locked or not would be a really bad idea.

Julian: I agree with you, but did you think Dan was suggesting otherwise,
or were you just agreeing with Dan's statement (or at least, with the
"yes, it's OK" part)?   I am assuming that you were not disagreeing
with Dan, since I don't believe he suggests anything that would make ETag
behavior depend on whether the resource was locked or not.

Cheers,
Geoff