- From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:07 -0700
- To: "'Slein, Judith A'" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, "'Greg Stein'" <gstein@lyra.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Phew!!! I couldn't believe what I was reading regarding write locks. What use is a write lock that only sometimes is a write lock? Yikes. I'm glad that is dead. However there is still a point in the original post that concerns me. Let's see if I understand the proposal: When copying a resource into a tree that is currently locked then the lock on that tree is lost? Is that the proposal for how to handle locks at the destination of a copied resource? That is my reading of the paragraph Judy provided. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com] > Sent: Tue, September 07, 1999 7:19 AM > To: 'Greg Stein'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Bindings, Locks, and MOVE > > > Thanks for bringing the discussion back to earth. > > I agree with you that the compromise of saying that servers > SHOULD protect > the path of the Request-URI used in locking a resource is a > poor one. It > doesn't respond to the issue that was raised, and it > needlessly muddies the > waters for clients, which now don't know whether the path > will be protected > or not. > > I like your suggestion that we keep the MUST language, but > state that it > applies only to write locks. > > --Judy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org] > > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 3:24 AM > > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Bindings, Locks, and MOVE > > > > > > This whole thread (post-Judy's message) seems to be picking > out a very > > minor detail of her post. Personally, I find this nit-picking > > of detail > > counter to the goal of her original post: "test its > > conclusions with the > > mailing list members." > > > > For myself (and mod_dav), the first "AGREED" portion makes complete > > sense, and I do agree with it. > > [btw, is *anybody* going to be implementing cross-server > MOVE/COPY? is > > it necessary to have that feature in the spec at all? of the > > umpteen DAV > > servers out there now, I don't know any that do this or plan > > to do this. > > It would be nice to cut the thing and not worry about it.] > > > > The second "AGREED" portion does not make a whole lot of sense. The > > commentary states that the position is too strong [because it > > might not > > make sense with other types of locks]. Are there other locks > > out there? > > Do people have concrete, useful examples? I haven't heard > of anything > > besides a write-lock yet. Regardless, I think it should be > enforced in > > the spec that a write-lock MUST have guaranteed protection of the > > Request-URI. Put in some language that says other locks can > define the > > MUST/SHOULD nature of protection. Otherwise, leave it in > the intuitive > > state: a write lock says that others cannot monkey with your URI. > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > > Edgar Schwarz wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > > > > > > > From: ccjason@us.ibm.com > > > > > > > > <JS> > > > > 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. > > > > </JS> > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Would it be possible to say: > > > If a locked resource is moved the server SHOULD create > a indirect > > > reference resource which should exist for some sensible time. > > > > > > Yes I know, it's complicating the server :-) > > > I imagine the above happening perhaps when somebody is > reorganizing > > > a directory structure and deep in the collections there are some > > > locked resources. > > > So the lock owner at least has a decent chance to find > out where his > > > resource has gone to. > > > > > > Regards, Edgar > > > > > > -- > > > Edgar.Schwarz@de.bosch.com ON/EMS1, 07191/13-3382 > > Niklaus Wirth: > > > Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos > > ansehen wie er mag. > > > Albert Einstein: Mach es so einfach wie moeglich, aber > > nicht einfacher. > > > > -- > > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ > > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 1999 20:49:16 UTC