- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > From: jamsden@us.ibm.com > > What does everyone else think? Do we need locking and versioning together? > We're trying to make them work together, and leverage locking semantics > whenever possible. But it hasn't been easy, and its cost us some > flexibility. > > This question has two parts: > > - If you are writing a versioning client, do you care whether your > versioning server gives you any locking capability (and if so, should > it be compatible with locking defined for non-versioning servers)? > > - If you are writing a versioning server, do you care that versioning > unaware locking clients work against your server? > > In my case, I care about the former, to control access of multiple > clients to the same working resource, and I care about the latter, > because there are some very important versioning unaware locking clients. Okay, fine. It seems there is consensus on both of these. The locknull thing should be solved one direction or another, and I don't see a real consensus there yet. [ followups should be directed at that thread ] Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 18:49:44 UTC