- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:24:33 -0400
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu] > 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. I disagree (strongly :-). There are a large variety of things that you cannot do to a lock null resource. BIND should be one of them. (In fact, just about everything should be one of them :-). A lock null resource is just a mechanism (hack :-) to expose a URL that is locked but that currently is not bound to a resource. If you want to see just how bad the lock null mechanism really is, just compare any two implementations of lock null resources, and notice how different/non-interoperable they are. So I'd say, yes. But, I'd understand if servers decided to fail such a request. I'd say "no", and all servers should be required to fail such a request. > (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. That is an omission (somewhat conscious, because I try to ignore lock null resources in hopes that they will be replaced with a more sensible form of lock discovery). If it looks like we can't make lock null resources go away, we need to update the BIND protocol to explicitly disallow binding to a lock null resource. > (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?) More than acceptable, commendable (:-). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2001 23:18:53 UTC