- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:13:07 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: ccjason@us.ibm.com <jlc/> I agree that collections are to manage and control namespace. My editorial comment was that locking a whole collection to protect a single binding seems like a lot of overkill. And if you want to protect a URI mapping... you'd have to lock the collection chain up to the root. Even more overkill. <gmc/> But the URL is "protected" by a LOCK, since we are requiring that a subsequent use of the URL with that lock token always select that locked resource. We're just removing the language in 2518 that over-constrained the server implementation (i.e. removing the language that said you cannot apply a MOVE or a DELETE to a locked resource). What 2518 didn't realize (and neither did I until Edgar pointed it out) you don't need to prevent the MOVE or DELETE just to keep a handle on the locked resource. So you only need to apply a lock to a collection if you really want to reserve the right to change the membership or properties of that collection. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 24 September 1999 18:13:10 UTC