Re: refresh LOCK for multiple locks

• From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
• Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:48:45 -0500
• To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <00bc01bf3a84$87c65780$384413ac@lex.rational.com>

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
> ... it seems somewhat odd that we use the IF header to determine
> what locks are to be refreshed.  I would think this should work just as
UNLOCK
> does.  That's not to say people can't use an IF header, but that's not how
> they specify which of the locks is to be refreshed.  The IF header would
only
> be for consistancy checking if the client wanted the refresh to be
contingent
> on the presence of a specified lock on some specified resource.

I agree with Jason (and others) that this would be the preferable way for
a lock refresh to work.

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:11:08 UTC