- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:13:12 -0400
- To: "Dan Brotsky" <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
<< 1. lock-null resources are just "regular resources" that are required to respond to certain methods in certain ways. >> I'd like to suggest that LNR's are *not* regular resources. With one exception that I've noticed, they are just "null resources" that have a lock affecting them. Think about a resource /b/ that has a depth lock and /b/a that is a null resource. Think about how /b/a behaves. It's not a LNR resource, it's just a totally normal "null resource" (or unmapped URL), but it seems to have the same behavior as a LNR. The exact same behavior. Except for one thing... The exception is that we've defined PROPFIND to not give a response for /b/a but we have specified that PROPFIND give a response to a LNR. That's the only exception, right? (This is a genuine question.) This being the case, I'd like to get away from talking about a LNR as a normal resource or an particularly odd type of "null resource". Instead we can say that we are allowed to lock a null resource that has a parent and that PROPFIND has special behavior for a null resource that has a lock rooted on it. If we can talk about something being "odd", we can talk about PROPFIND being odd. << As we revise 2518, I think we should give servers much more discretion about how they handle LOCK/UNLOCK pairs, and possibly we ... >> Given what I've suggested above, I don't think we'd need special behavior controling the creation/destruction of LNR by LOCK/UNLOCK methods since there would be no creation/destruction to control. Anyway... is LNR simply an illusion created by PROPFIND? Do LNR have any other behavior that distinguishes them from locked null resource? J.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 18:31:46 UTC