- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:23:38 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > Sorry if this has already been discussed but it seems to me that exclusive > locks can be replicated using the refresh mechanism and hence aren't really > guaranteed to be exclusive but rather sort of shared. Look at this example: They could be exclusive if you defined that to mean "exclusive to a principal." > - While working in my office I get a lock on a resource and start edit it. > I suddenly have to run home so I save the edits but don't want to release > the lock as I don't want other people to start editing the document. > > - Later on at home I continue editing the document but the document is > still locked by me at work. However, I can discover the identity of the > lock using a PROPFIND and while I can not relock the resource it seems that > I can do a refresh on it which again seems to give me a copy of the lock at > home. Just holding the authorization and the lock token (found thru PROPFIND), then you would have the lock at home. Refreshing is incidental to your scenario. Note, though: it seems that sections 6.6 and 12.1 do not require the server to give up the lock token in a PROPFIND. Your home machine may not be able to figure out what it is. While the behavior seems okay (exclusive to a principal), it does not help the user to manage machine-switches like the one you are describing. Once you bring versioning into the picture, though, your work machine may be storing intermediates to the server; your home machine would then work on the intermediate, to be picked back up when you return to work. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 1999 15:27:59 UTC