- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:28:01 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: Michael Leditschke [mailto:mike@ammd.com.au] DAV locks are supposed to be capable of being held for an extended time. Only by the process that took out the lock. I might want to lock a resource, edit it for a while locally, then push the result back and unlock it again. Are you suggesting this all has to be done by the same OS process? Yes. What happens if the power goes out and my PC reboots? The new process needs to obtain its own (new) lock. The old lock is cleaned up by a timeout, or if allowed by the server, the new process can clean up the old lock with an UNLOCK. The new process shouldn't "reuse" the old lock, unless you have some way of guaranteeing that two processes cannot both reuse the old lock at the same time. Or perhaps you expect the client to cache locktokens? Only if the cache has some way of guaranteeing that only one process can obtain the cached locktoken. In my case, it is the same client I'm using to lock and unlock and I'm presenting the same credentials to the server. Its a low level test program, so I would have thought being able to unlock a resource of which I am the owner would be reasonable. Unlocking is reasonable (unlike "reusing", which is not), but some servers do not trust clients to appropriately unlock something they didn't lock (since the client can't automatically know that it is appropriate to do so, and even if it asks the user, the user can be mistaken). Those servers require clients to depend on timeouts. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 22:28:32 UTC