- From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:45:46 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
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>
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 14:55:17 UTC