RE: locks and trust (Re: Rejected Requirements)

To: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: locks and trust (Re: Rejected Requirements)
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:39:18 -0700
Cc: Mark_Day/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com
From w3c-dist-auth-request@www10.w3.org Mon Jun 2 13: 43:03 1997
Message-Id: <afb8ab6e0a02100481fd@[128.195.21.209]>
X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/
X-See-Also: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring
X-Sender: ejw@paris.ics.uci.edu

>I would like to see the shared-lock be an optional portion of the WebDAV
>standard. I think the minimum requirement for locking is exclusive locking
>and this should be the minimum that WebDAV requires.

What is expressed in the latest locking draft is that *all* locking
capability should be optional.   Since some replicated storage systems
cannot enforce the semantics of a lock, and since people are interested in
building WebDAV servers on top of these replicated stores, we can't have
mandatory lock capability without excluding this very important type of
back-end.  As I recall, Mark Day was a major proponent of not having lock
functionality mandatory, so perhaps he could expand on this.

- Jim

Prev: RE: locks and trust (Re: Rejected Requirements)
Next: RE: locks and trust (Re: Rejected Requirements)
Index: Message index of w3c-dist-auth@w3.org mailing list
Thread: Thread index of w3c-dist-auth@w3.org mailing list