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

Re: DELETE leaving a lock-null resource; was LOCK Scenarios

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:21:46 -0400
Message-Id: <9909231521.AA07586@tantalum>
To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
<gmc/> After slightly wavering, I'm firmly back in the:
"just say no to lock-null resources" camp.
We just don't need the complexity of a "non-resource resource"
for the minimal gain it provides.


   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   There are a large number of situations in authoring environments where
   transaction semantics are required. WebDAV doesn't (yet) support transactions,
   and I don't think we should attempt to come up with a lot of special cases (like
   lock-null resources) supported by the protocol to overcome this important
   missing function. Rather let's propose an extension that does support
   transactions. Might be pretty hard with a stateless server though.
   So you're not a fan of lock-null resources either at this stage.  That seems

   JimA and I have been doing all the talking for the last day.  Anyone else want
   to be heard?  :-)

   I don't really care that much one way or the other about lock-null resources. I
   think they add a lot of complexity to the protocol for little functional gain
   and wouldn't be opposed to removing them. But if they stay, that's OK too.  If
   lock-null stays, then I think it would be reasonable for delete on a locked
   resource to change the state of the resource to a lock-null resource. To
   complete the delete, the client would have to do the unlock. This is at least
   consistent semantics and allows the protocol to support symmetric resource
Received on Thursday, 23 September 1999 11:21:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:18 UTC