- From: Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:18:14 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:58 PM, edgar@edgarschwarz.de wrote: > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> schrieb: >> Locking has been optional in RFC2518, so there shouldn't be any >> problem >> whatsoever having a RFC2518bis-minus-locking going to draft. In fact >> it'll be easier because locking is the area that needs most attention. >> >> That being said, what *is* your position regarding separating locking >> into a separate document? > I wonder at the moment what we win by locking ? > Roughly speaking it's for avoiding collaborative workers to damage > other peoples > work. > But it seems defining and implementing locks successfully is very > difficult. > OTOH there is DeltaV which also is a means (Albeit more complex, but > servers and > clients are coming) to avoid collaborative conflicts. > So who needs locking ? Me definitely not. > I would be happy to implement DeltaV and the underlying RFC2518 stuff > without having > to implement locks. > So doing a RFC2518bis-minus-locking would be fine with me. > And whoever wants locks because he doesn't like DeltaV can work on a > lock spec. > This also would help BIND, which wouldn't need to say anything about > locks > anymore. > Locking has been a pain in the ass for years. So let's get rid of it > in RFC2518bis ! > This really could help us to make progress because many disagreements > will > disappear. > Just my 2 cent without giving it a lot of thought. > > Cheers, Edgar Who needs locking? Apple's Mac OS X WebDAV file system client needs it. Whenever a file (a non-collection resource on the WebDAV server) is opened with write access, the WebDAV file system obtains a lock. The lock is held until the file is closed. If a WebDAV server does not support locks (i.e., it is not class 2 compliant), the WebDAV file system mounts it read-only. - Jim
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 13:19:38 UTC