W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: are depth 0 locks inherited by newly created children?

From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:26:50 -0500
Message-ID: <011301bf3b60$793b93b0$9ef6a8c0@lex.rational.com>
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
> Just to remind you, at the start of this thread someone (G Slein, J
> CC Jason or G Clemm,  sorry I am not sure who though)  asserted that if a
> depth 0 lock was inherited, something bad would happen.  but  upon
> challenge, no one has been able to say what that bad thing is.

See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999OctDec/0245.html>
In particular, this message says:

I lock a collection, because I'm going to be adding members
to that collection.  If a depth:0 lock applies to all the
immediate members of a collection as well, then I have prevented
anyone from updating the state of one of the existing internal members of
that collection.  If I'd wanted that behavior, I would have issued a
depth:1 lock.  And quoting from the definition of what depth means:

   The Depth header is used with methods executed on resources which
   could potentially have internal members to indicate whether the
   method is to be applied only to the resource ("Depth: 0"), to the
   resource and its immediate children, ("Depth: 1"), or the resource
   and all its progeny ("Depth: infinity").

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 13:25:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:19 UTC