RE: Locks, reservations, copies and moves

Before I go off on a rant, what systems currently allow you to retain a
lock when you move a file?
		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	-=jack=- [SMTP:jack@twaxx.twaxx.com]
> Sent:	Monday, September 01, 1997 9:43 AM
> To:	'Del Jensen'; mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch; Yaron Goland; Dylan Barrell
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Locks, reservations, copies and moves
> 
> Th behaviour of removing a lock when moving a resource is bound to
> result in
> overwrite conflicts due to locks being inadvertantly lost through some
> structural re-organisation. This will also require that only the owner
> of the
> lock be able to move the resource which is unnecessarily restrictive
> in a
> shared authoring environment where one individual might be responsible
> for
> content and another for structure.
> --------
> I would say that a  lock must be retained when a resource is moved.
> This
> is something of a grey area WRT locks and the prevention of
> overwriting of
> content.  The main purpose of the lock is to maintain the consistency
> of
> content when one author out of potentially many is modifying the
> content.
> This prevention of other authors modifying the content must be
> maintained
> whether or not an administrator decides to move the entire resource to
> some
> other location.  Note that this isn't dangerous to the content, unless
> the
> lock is NOT maintained.  I would argue that the lock should simply be
> moved with the resource, which allows administrators the freedom to do
> their jobs without interfering with the maintenance of the consistency
> of
> content, which is the job the lock does for multiple authors.
> 
> -=jack=-
> 
> (This text composed by voice)
> 
> 
> --

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 1997 16:19:13 UTC