RE: Webdav issue: UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS

<<
The other issue, Geoff, is that people are using LOCK as a poor person's
CHECKOUT, also assuming that LOCK's won't timeout.
>>
I agree.

<<
  The RFC2518 revision
should clearly state that LOCKs aren't to be used for this purpose.
>>
???? - I assume the purpose of locking is to avoid lost updates.  What is
the distinction between a "poor man's CHECKOUT"  and "avoidance of the lost
update problem"?   In the absense of actual versioning, aren't they the
same?

J.

Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 12:26:33 UTC