Re: LOCK Scenarios

From: Jason Crawford on 08/18/99 02:18 PM

To:   jamsden@us.ibm.com
cc:

Subject:  Re: LOCK Scenarios  (Document link not converted)


<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>
I hope I am expressing what is currently in the spec rather than an opinion. I'm
not opposed to changing the spec to something else, but I havn't seen anything
yet that would motivate me to retain destination locks.
</jra>

<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>
<jra>
Its a new lock on the destination (the new member of the parent collection), not
a new lock on the parent collection. Again, just like you would get if you did a
PUT or MKCOL to create a new resource in that collection. The new resource would
get a new (to it) lock inherited from its parent.
</jra>