- From: Eric Sedlar <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:58:38 -0800
- To: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
This is what is supposed to happen when you lock a collection--you lock all of the names within it, probably given that you are going to do a reorganization. For you to demonstrate that this is a problem, give a scenario where a versioning-unaware application is going to lock a collection. --Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com> To: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com> Cc: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>; <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:32 PM Subject: Re: a Grand Unified Locking Proposal (GULP, or perhaps, GULP! :-) > > 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 Friday, 14 January 2000 04:59:12 UTC