- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:13:56 -0400
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
One of the issues we've been talking about is what should happen if you MOVE a resource into a locked collection. What lock should be on the resource after the MOVE? I think the question is whether collection locks with Depth: infinity should be inherited statically or dynamically. Should a collection lock with Depth: infinity affect just those resources that are in the collection at the time the lock is created (static inheritance), or should the lock affect whatever resources come into the collection while it is in force (and stop applying to any resources that are removed from the collection) (dynamic inheritance)? Static inheritance suggests that the lock would be maintained on the collection and also maintained on each resource in the collection to depth infinity. It would be painful to create this lock, and painful to remove it, and while it is in force it would be necessary to keep track of the MOVEs out of the collection in order to be able to remove the lock correctly in the end. However, if every lock is maintained on each resource it affects, it is easy to tell whether a given resource is locked. Dynamic inheritance suggests that the lock would be maintained only on the collection. It is easy to create and remove such a lock. But it is difficult to tell whether any given resource is locked when someone attempts a PUT, MOVE, etc. Especially once the BIND method is available, you would have to trace from the resource in question upward through all the bindings on all the collections in the hierarchy to find out whether the resource is locked. Currently, section 7.7 of RFC 2518 requires dynamic inheritance of locks. -- Judy Judith A. Slein Xerox Corporation jslein@crt.xerox.com (716)422-5169 800 Phillips Road 105/50C Webster, NY 14580
Received on Thursday, 5 August 1999 17:14:04 UTC