RE: Comments on 06 spec

Hold it, the spec does not state that GETs are unaffected by locks. It
states that GETs are unaffected by WRITE locks. This is only one kind of
lock. I know that a read lock spec will be released in the near future
(mostly because I have to write it). Additionally our syntax allows for one
to request multiple lock types simultaneous so one could, for example, ask
for a read/write exclusive lock. This would create the sort of atomicity
that has been asked for.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Monday, January 26, 1998 10:42 AM
> To:	Fisher Mark
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Comments on 06 spec
> 
> At 09:36 AM 1/26/98 PST, Fisher Mark wrote:
> >
> >Maybe I am assuming too much, but if I was a user of a commercial-grade
> >WebDAV system, I would just assume that appropriate locks were taken out
> >automatically on the subordinate objects, so that Joe could not access P
> >or its subordinate objects once Jane had set the deletion in motion.
> 
> This assumption is false.  The spec says explicitly that GET is unaffected
> by locks.
> 
> Perhaps this indicates the need for a sentence or two in the spec to
> explicitly call out this possibility for integrity violations.  I
> acknowledge in advance the need for a balance between tutorial/cautionary
> material and straightforward exposition, but if this is a plausible
> misunderstanding then perhaps it is good to try a little harder to fend it
> off.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 20:26:05 UTC