- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:19:13 -0700
- To: "'Kevin Wiggen'" <wiggs@wiggenout.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0879331D@RED-MSG-59>
If clients could not 100% rely on the IF header behavior then the locking mechanism becomes useless because they lose all ability to be sure that a resource hasn't changed in a way forbidden by their lock. So the answer to your question is that you must always pay attention to the write lock token and in all cases with no exceptions you must fail the request if the write lock identified by the token isn't active on the resource. Yaron -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Wiggen [mailto:wiggs@wiggenout.com] Sent: Wed, June 16, 1999 10:55 AM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Disappearing Locks What is the correct implementation for a server under the following circumstances: A webdav client takes out a lock on a file. It does a PUT giving the lock token and the put succeeds. --I am ok with this A webdav client takes out a lock on a file. For some unforseen reason the lock gets removed (as the spec says it can) and the client does not know this. The client then does a PUT sending the lock in the IF header. The IF header fails and returns a 412 to the client..... --This is what I think should happen (it is an IF header), but Is this correct? Should the IF header fail, or should I let it succeed because the file is no longer locked and who cares if the client sent extra info. I've gotten in trouble before by saying here is what MS does, but just to place an example out there :) Office2000 will try to do the PUT, it gets the 412. It then does a PROPFIND (at this point it could determine that the file is no longer locked if it wanted to), then it just trys to do the PUT again sending the lock token. An endless loop..... Is the idea here to be exact with the IF header logic, or was IF just used as an easy place to send the locktoken and I should ignore extra locktokens sent in during requests??? Thanks, Kevin
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 1999 18:20:59 UTC