RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

This is way too restrictive. what use is a lock if I can eliminate it by simply moving it to another collection (on the same server) and back again?

Cheers
Dylan
----------
From: 	Yaron Goland[SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com]
Sent: 	Donnerstag, 28. August 1997 13:34
To: 	'Dylan Barrell'; 'WebDAV'
Subject: 	RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

Locks on an object are lost when you move it. To do otherwise would
require DAV to implement server to server communication in order to make
locks portable.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dylan Barrell [SMTP:dbarrell@opentext.ch]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 28, 1997 2:30 PM
> To:	'WebDAV'
> Subject:	Locks, reservations, copies and moves
> 
> There seems to be a bit of a hole in the draft in its current form
> with regard to locks and reservations which needs to be filled. We
> need to specify - either in the requirements document or in the spec -
> what happens to locks and reservations when a resource or collection
> of resources is copied and/or moved. The issue becomes problematic
> when you consider that the current definition of MOVE is a COPY
> followed by a DELETE and when you consider the issue of multi-resource
> locking.
> 
> I don't know what the consensus is among the server folks but it seems
> to me that some of the server implementations might have problems
> dealing with these issues.
> 
> The simplest solution seems to me to do the following
> 
> 1. Disallow moving of locked or reserved resources (or at least
> resource locked as part of a multi.-resource lock)
> 2. Specifically state that the correct behaviour in the case of a COPY
> is to NOT copy the locks or reservations.
> 3. Change the definition of MOVE to be independent of COPY
> 
> Cheers
> Dylan

Received on Friday, 29 August 1997 03:16:52 UTC