- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:48:09 -0400
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFBF583B55.951C4DDD-ON85256BF3.0013900A@us.ibm.com>
<< Question: why would multiple lock tokens refer to the same lock? And *if* there are multiple URIs referring to the same lock (a consequence of BINDs???), what's the point in reporting more than one? Is anybody using this? Has interoperability been tested? >> That caught me by surprise. But you made me read a bit and I did uncover the following. Apparently in the case of a shared lock it's considered the same lock, just different tokens. It's not clear they actually mean that with the following wording, but the following is just one of several places where they use the same sort of wording. 7.2 Write Locks and Lock Tokens A successful request for an exclusive or shared write lock MUST result in the generation of a unique lock token associated with the requesting principal. Thus if five principals have a shared write lock on the same resource there will be five lock tokens, one for each principal. This leaves me perplexed about how UNLOCK works for shared locks. I suggest we (1) check with Yaron if this was intentional and get an explanation and (2) make it clear that each lock has one token and a shared lock means that multiple locks are acting on a resource, not just multiple tokens. (Does anyone know how to contact Yaron?) J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 01:07:05 UTC