- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:52:34 +0100
- To: "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> wrote: > > > No, that's great!<g> The lock null resource is a nonce concept > > that is not required by Delta-V. > > Since the lock null resource is enshrined in RFC2518, I do not think > it's merely a nonce concept (yes, I had to look it up :) Sorry, what I meant was that "lock-null" resources are wierd. The notion was introduced for a unique purpose, and it is probably best if we tolerate it but don't propogate it in Delta-V. > But you have a point about the purpose, let me try again and see if I > get it better: the lock-null feature allows people to lock something > before it's created so that there's no window, or gap, when somebody > else can lock it (after it's created but before the creator has finished > with it). Agreement? Clients can't "lock something before it is created". The problem is how to reserve the namespace for a future resource. Since HTTP deals with named resources RFC2518 had to introduce a 'null' resource to get the namespace locking without providing a meaningful resource entity. > > I see no argument for VERSION-CONTROL or CHECKOUT, but MKWORKSPACE is a > > more likely candidate since it is akin to MKCOL. This would obviously > > require a modification to RFC2518's statement that the lock null resource > > MUST fail methods that are not in the named list. > > I agree. Rather than relying on the not-fully-prescient wording of > RFC2518, I'd suggest saying that MKWORKSPACE can be allowed on a > write-locked null resource, but no other DeltaV methods. > > The modification to RFC2518 is not required because it states "any HTTP/1.1 > or DAV methods ". DeltaV methods, obviously, are not covered by this, > because if HTTP/1.1 was meant to be inclusive, then DAV wouldn't have been > called out explicitly. > :) Fine. Tim
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 06:03:11 UTC