- From: Quentin Clark <quentinc@MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 22:51:14 -0800
- To: "'Christopher Seiwald'" <seiwald@perforce.com>, "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Yaron Goland <yarong@MICROSOFT.com>
hello. By way of introduction, I work as a Program Manager at Microsoft on the Internet Information Server (IIS). I am working with Yaron on DAV issues, as well as other web protocols (among other things). I too am unaware of source control products that have byte-range level locking. However, most OS's that I am aware of do. Since one of the practical uses of the DAV methods will be to extend local file systems to web servers, it appears to be very appropriate. As far as the cache invalidating argument goes, while certainly it seems to make sense, I don't think resources that are going to be partially locked are going to be necessarily fully read. As an example, imagine a web application that maintains a database of information which is implemented as a single file for performance reasons. Modifying this over HTTP could be implemented by partial GETs, LOCKs, and PUTs. I am failing to understand the objection to keeping range-locking in-scope. I think it should be kept in. Quentin Clark Program Manager Internet Information Server http://www.microsoft.com/iis -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Seiwald [SMTP:seiwald@perforce.com] But few (no?) existing version control systems provide range locking. So you'd be breaking new ground -- not necessarily the best thing for a standards body. Christopher ---- Christopher Seiwald Perforce Software 1-510-865-8720 seiwald@perforce.com f-f-f-fast SCM http://www.perforce.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 01:58:19 UTC