Re: resourcetype locknull

Geoff,
That's exactly how I feel about it too. With MKRESOURCE, perhaps even PUT
shouldn't create resources as a side effect, but we have to be compatible with
HTTP conventions.





"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com> on 10/14/99 10:23:30 AM

To:   w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
cc:

Subject:  Re: resourcetype locknull




   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   <jra>
   We could eliminate lock-null resources, and keep the ability to reserve a
name
   in the namespace if LOCK on a null resource created a resource with an empty
   body and locked it. Since LOCK on a null resource isn't going to respond with
   404 Not Found anyway, it might as well create the resource.
   </jra>

Having LOCK create a null resource as a side effect?
This can't be "no control coupling" Jim Amsden talking here! (:-).

But seriously, I could easily live with this proposal.  Although I am
aesthetically against control coupling of this kind (i.e. creating a
resource and locking a resource should be two separate and orthogonal
requests), I could live with it if that's what it takes to get rid
of lock null resources.

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Thursday, 14 October 1999 13:11:25 UTC