- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:32:22 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > 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. I agree that servers can rewrite the content upon PUT, even if the resource is locked. I do not agree that they need to break the lock to do that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 06:34:03 UTC