- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:32:36 -0500
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
- cc: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Ah... Eric's note brings up another possibility. It might be a red herring, but as Geoff's proposal is currently written (and Eric's too I think) it still is a possibly unexpected behavior. User B locks /a/b/ exclusively. User D tries to do a shared lock on /a/b/c/d.html but fails because in the proposal that will also create a lock (or will it?) on /a/b/ which already has an exclusive lock on it. I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just pointing it out as what sounds like a difference in the recent proposals relative to what we were proposing a month or more ago. Jason.
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2000 17:33:27 UTC