- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:25:45 -0400
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Cc: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
<< There was a long discussion of locking a URL (so that a resource can't move when locked) in the fall of 1999, and in looking back through the archive, I didn't get a feeling of resolution that the spec should be changed in any way. >> We didn't resolve it, but we were close. In Dec 99 the locking discussion got defered as some of the advanced collections issues were suddenly hotly debated. << from Yaron, and there were a number of proposals to actually specify whether you wanted a namespace lock or a resource lock, rather than leaving this vague. I still think this is very useful, for performance reasons >> I assume people tend to lock resources because they want to work on them and modify them. I can't imagine one wanting to allow folks the resource they are working on unless... (1) moving it doesn't prevent them from being able to "check their modifications in". Or (2) they know there is no one that will move it. How common are these? Are there other cases? << (I think Greg Stein mentioned that mod_dav must recursively search the source directory for locks before doing a MOVE for just this reason--not a good thing) >> I think there is an alternative algorithm that can be used whereby locking marks the bindings between the locked resource and the root resource of the namespace. The cost of marking/unmarking should be O(log(n)) where n is the number of resources in the system. The cost of checking before breaking a binding should be O(1). In other words, not expensive if this algorithm can be used. Is there a problem doing this? It doesn't sound expensive. Is it? J.
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 00:26:43 UTC