- From: Eric Sedlar <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:32:49 -0700
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Well, checkout doesn't allow things to timeout, nor can you grab a resource checked out into another workspace the way you can grab somebody else's lock. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 9:20 AM > To: Eric Sedlar > Cc: Webdav WG > Subject: 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 Tuesday, 21 August 2001 13:27:13 UTC