- From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:00:56 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
John, Locking a collection means users that do not own the lock cannot modify the collection. That is, they cannot add or remove members and cannot modify the collections properties. John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> on 10/15/99 09:44:50 AM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org cc: Subject: Re: resourcetype locknull "Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > - return a 404 if there is no resource to LOCK, > - let the client create a "null" instance of what it wants there, > - then the client locks that null instance and it is off and running. For collections, this doesn't work properly with your/Alan's proposal for static depth locking. If I'm creating a collection, I do LOCK (404), MKCOL, LOCK--but this LOCK only locks the resources that are there now (i.e., none). So anybody else is free to come along and add new resources, and my lock means nothing. For collections that are meant to model compound documents or some such, where the entire state of the collection needs to be treated as a unit, this is a Bad Thing. -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |Illiterate? Write today for free help! | |francis@ecal.com| | \==============================================================/
Received on Friday, 15 October 1999 15:04:06 UTC