W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Bindings, Locks, and MOVE

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:44:23 -0400
Message-Id: <9909030144.AA02884@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
   From: ccjason@us.ibm.com

   This discussion began with Yaron's comment that saying that "it MUST NOT be
   possible for a principal other than the lock owner to make a locked resource
   inaccessible via the URI mapping used to lock the resource" is too strong.
   It may make sense for write locks as defined in RFC 2518, but may not make
   sense for other sorts of locks that don't restrict MOVE and DELETE.

   I believe that this is not specific to any particular type of locks.  All
   clients need to insure that they have at the very least a way to unlock
   the the locks they have created.  I assume that to unlock (a resource), we
   have to provide a URI of a (the?) resource locked by that lock... so if
   someone else changes the URI, it's
   very likely that we're not going to be able to figure out what the new
   URI is... and will have to leave the lock around until it times out.

<gmc> Since the server needs to deal with this in case the client just
neglects to remove the lock, and if having another client MOVE your
locked resource is a rare occurrence (which I believe it is), then
this does not seem to be especially problematical.

Received on Thursday, 2 September 1999 21:44:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:17 UTC