- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:15:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> No matter what people think of locknull resources, they do exist, and they do modify the parent collection. The fact that they show up in a PROPFIND does not require that their addition and removal from a collection affect the lock state of that collection. I'll appeal again to live properties here. They are properties of a resource, but they can be changed without affecting the lock state of the resource. My previous post went over this, and I see nothing "funny" about different behaviors when different states exist on the server. I'll retract my "acts funny" argument, since "acting funny" will never be more than a subjective criteria. My real concern was the bad interaction with versioning (but I still think locknull resources act funny :-). Personally, I'd just refuse to create locknull resources in a versioned space. Maybe even disable locking altogether. This would mean that all locking clients (such as Office 2000) would fail when applied against a versioned space. I believe this is unacceptable (I know it is unacceptable for my implementation). Yup. Locknull resources exist to "reserve" a particular member in a parent collection. You have to modify the parent to assert that the member has been reserved. But that modification does not have to imply a change that is controlled by a write lock (the live property analogy). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 23:15:52 UTC