- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:53:04 -0700
- To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> Is it expected that you should be able to BIND a lock-null resource? Interesting question. Since it is a resource, it makes sense that you can bind to it. So I'd say, yes. But, I'd understand if servers decided to fail such a request. > I am in the process of trying to come up with a software design for > the programmers here to implement WebDAV (first) and then DeltaV (later). > We want to build a fairly generic lump of code to do all the protocol > messing around with a fairly clean and simplified to the underlying > 'file system of resources'. > > So far I have put the LOCK mechanisms into the WebDAV library layer > (because they are based on URIs). I am also trying to keep the > 'lock-null' resource concept in the WebDAV layer since they are > tightly related to locks. My current proposal is to keep track > of lock-null resources with properties that have been set and then > copy those properties over to the real resource when it is created > later (if I have understood things correctly). > > I realise BIND is not in the base WebDAV spec, but I want to keep > what is done future proof. > > There are two variations of questions I guess I have. > > (1) Does the spec prohibit BIND-ing to a lock-null resource? > (OK, I am being lazy and have not reread the spec again to > verify this question - but the next question is the real question) I just gave it a quick look, and it seems like the BIND protocol specification does not mention lock null resources. > (2) Regardless of the spec, do people think its acceptable to fail > BIND requests to a lock-null resource with an error? (Is there > any reason why someone would want to do it before doing a PUT > or MKCOL etc?) I think this is fine. - Jim
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 20:55:22 UTC