- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 01:35:55 -0800
- To: "'masinter@parc.xerox.com'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
The idea has a lot of merit, but after I posted the change, I started asking myself "why should Lock Tokens not be e-tags?" One problem I see is that there is a difference between e-tags and lock tokens. For example, if I have a shared or advisory lock (they are coming...), I want to continue testing for my lock independently of changes to the resource. The resource may change but my lock is still there. Furthermore a server may have different mechanisms for assigning lock tokens and e-tags. What is really needed is a way to use the if-match header for multiple state tokens. In fact I am beginning to think that keeping lock tokens as a token and make them URIs is the way to go. That way the server can quickly determine that something that is not an e-tag has been put in the if-match header and the URI will tell the server what state token it is looking at. All this having been said, I have to admit I am running on instinct. Near as I can tell, I can't come up with a compelling reason why lock tokens shouldn't be e-tags. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 1997 9:12 PM > To: Yaron Goland > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Change to Lock-Token > > Yaron Goland wrote: > > > > As I was working through versioning I realized I had made a mistake > in > > specifying the Lock-Token header. I want lock-tokens to be > > quoted-strings, instead of tokens, so they can be used anywhere an > e-tag > > may be used. > > Yaron > > > > Lock-Token Header > > > > LockToken = "Lock-Token" ":" quoted-string CRLF > > > > The Lock-Token may be used anywhere that an e-tag may be used. So > > Lock-Tokens may be used in if-match calls to indicate that the > request > > may only proceed if the lock is still in force. > > The LockToken header may never appear in the same request as a > Lock-Info > > header. > > If a lock-token quacks like an etag, why isn't an etag? > > Wouldn't it be simpler just to say "you can lock something, > and you get back the etag of the thing you locked"? > > -- > http://www.parc.xerox.com
Received on Monday, 24 March 1997 04:35:53 UTC