- From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:07:25 -0700
- To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To quote from section 7.5: A write lock on a collection, whether created by a "Depth: 0" or "Depth: infinity" lock request, prevents the addition or removal of member URIs of the collection by non-lock owners. Hence if a/b is WRITE locked then a singleton WRITE lock on a/ will fail because the WRITE lock on a/b, as specified in section 7.1, reserves the write for DELETE. In other words: 1. a/b is WRITE locked and thus has exclusive use of DELETE 2. The depth: 0 WRITE lock on a/ reserves the write to DELETE on a/ and its immediate children. 3. Since a/b is WRITE locked the WRITE lock depth:0 request on a/ MUST fail. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: ccjason@us.ibm.com [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:47 PM > To: Yaron Goland (Exchange) > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: LOCK NULL reserves what? > > > > >> > Step 1 - User A successfully take out an exclusive write lock > on a/b, which > is a lock null resource. > Step 2 - User B tries to take out an exclusive write lock, > depth = infinity > on a/. The write lock will fail because a/b is already locked. > >> > > Perhaps I should have been clearer. What if step two is a > singleton, not a > depth lock request. Can User A do a BIND/MOVE/and other operations > that we usually think of as modifying the state of /a/? > > I'm asking for the original design philosophy and the what > we'd actually > like to see now. Two questions. > > It does beg a second question. Reverse the order of the > steps. Can the > lock null resource be created if the parent is locked? I > think the answer > to this is easier. :-) > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 1999 15:07:42 UTC