- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:36:08 EST
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> If we have UNBIND, we need to specify its interaction with LOCK. >> Presumably we at least want to prevent an UNBIND on the URL that >> was used to create the LOCK, but it might be easier (since >> it's the resource that's locked) to prevent any UNBINDs to a >> resource while the resource is locked. > >Hmm. This boils down to the question of the relationship between bindings >and a resource. Radical proposal: the binding is truly a separate name for the same resource, and there is no discernable distinction between the two different names (just like a Unix hardlink). Then the sequence "BIND A to B, UNBIND A" (or the other way around) would be equivalent to a MOVE. In this case, it is clear that a LOCK on one name must lock all names, since they're all the same resource. -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal, Inc. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/ --
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 1999 22:34:13 UTC