- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:25:49 -0400
- To: jamsden@us.ibm.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
<JC> BTW, I propose we use the phrases, "rooted at the URI" vs "inherited at the URI/resource" when talking about these locks. As far as vocabulary goes, there are also a few other cases that need vocabulary. I'll save that for a seperate note. </JC> <jra> I don't know what either of these phrases mean. A resource is locked or unlocked. A resource inherites any depth infinity lock of its parent collection, no matter how it became a member of that collection. </jra> <JC> As I said, I'll save the full vocabulary and lock/resource/URI discussion for another note. I'll just say here that for discussing the differences between the two proposals, we need terminology that describes the situation where the two proposals differ. The "Rooted" phrase refers to that situation. The situation where the earlier LOCK request was originally (to simplify) at the same URI that is now the destination of the MOVE. </JC> <jra> I don't think the destination URL retains the lock of the resource that used to be at that destination unless it just happens to have the same depth infinity locked parent collection. </jra> <JC> Right. That's where there is a difference of opinion. </JC> <jra> ...But this would be a new lock with the timeout reset. </jra> <JC> New lock? Perhaps I didn't understand what you just said above about "same.... parent". Please run that by me again. <JC>
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 14:27:24 UTC