- From: WJCarpenter <bill@carpenter.ORG>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:37:43 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
gmc> I personally would not favor any flag that splits the locking gmc> behavior into two different flavors. Since I can't imagine gmc> clients putting in alternative code paths for these different gmc> flavors of locks, this just guarantees non-interoperability, as gmc> each flavor of server fails a client's request to provide the gmc> other flavor of lock. Well, uh, sheesh, I almost regret having to point this out, but the current LOCK method already describes two flavors of locking, and it seems to me that that overloading is what is causing the current disagreement and discussion. LOCKing a resource and LOCKing a namespace are different animals, whether you use the same verb or not. Having the method overloaded gives the opportunity for (1) implementation errors, and (2) wishing it weren't so. -- bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter) PGP bill@bubblegum.net 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 1999 17:39:06 UTC