- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:28:15 -0400
- To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- cc: JSlein@crt.xerox.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
GEoff, before you go on vacation, it would probably be valuable if you were your own devil's advocate here.... <GC> So what conclusion can one draw from all this? One possibility is to say that locking is largely unneccessary in the presence of versioning (after all, everything is read-only unless you explicitly check it out into your workspace), so versioning servers just won't bother with locking at all. This would have an unfortunate interoperability result on Class-2 clients try to work with versioning servers. </GC> So why *NOT* let versioning replace locking? Is there a form of locking that provides value add over versioning? How mature is the versioning work? Be your own devil's advocate... <GC> Another possibility is to downgrade Depth:infinity locking to a MAY, thereby warning clients that they are likely to find this not supported, and to turn the default lock into Depth:0, instead of Depth:infinity. The latter will cause an interoperability issue with existing class-2 servers, but since there aren't many of those yet, if we move fast, this would probably be OK. </GC> There must be issues with your first proposal or you wouldn't have offered this one. Let's hear them. :-) I just want to get your thoughts here before you go. I'm sure we'll all be discussing this while you're gone. Cheers, Jason.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 1999 20:29:45 UTC