- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 12:19:46 -0400
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
<< 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