- 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