- From: Nevermann, Dr., Peter <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:55:15 +0200
- To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210605C48060@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
I am trying to figure out, how write locks should behave WRT binding.
Take the following scenario:
- a collection C11
- a collection C1 containing a binding "foo" to C11 and mapped to URI "u1"
- a resource R2
- a collection C2 containing a binding "b" to R2 and mapped to URI "u2"
u1|
C1
foo| |u2
C11 C2
|b
R2
Now the following requests are issued (' marks locked resources):
- LOCK /u1 (write, exclusive, depth=infinity)
--> C11 is automatically added to the write-lock
- PUT /u1/foo/a (passing locktoken)
--> creates R1 which is added to the write-lock (RFC2518, Section 7.5)
- BIND /u1/foo (b->/u2/b, passing locktoken)
--> R2 is added to the write-lock (RFC2518, Section 7.5)
u1|
C1'
foo| |u2
C11' C2
a| b\ |b
R1' R2'
- REBIND /u2 (a->/u1/foo/a, passing locktoken)
--> R1 is removed from the write-lock (RFC2518, Section 7.7)
u1|
C1'
foo| |u2
C11' C2
b\ |b \a
R2' R1
The described behavior for BIND and REBIND is what I suppose it should be.
Is it correct?
BTW, what happens if, afterwards, the following UNLOCK on R2 is issued:
- UNLOCK /u1/foo/b (passing locktoken)
--> a) request is rejected, UNLOCK must be issued of C1 (/u1)
or
--> b) all associated resources (C1, C11, R2) are unlocked (RFC2518,
Section 8.10.4)
I suppose, that it is not possible to remove single resources from the
write-lock by means of UNLOCK, isn't it?
Thanks,
Peter
P.S.:
At http://www.webdav.org/specs/ I found a link to
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/collection/bind-issues.html, which
contains the following entry:
"ID: 41
Source: Reuter/Hunt
Description: Specify how BIND interacts with a write lock.
Status: Closed
Resolution: Declined
Locking semantics is in too confused a state currently to
be able to make any reliable statements. Don't want to hold
up binding spec till lock settles down."
Is that still prevailing?
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 06:55:24 UTC