- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:45:04 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> > REBIND /CollW HTTP/1.1 > If: <http://example.com/CollW/CollY/CollZ> (<L3>) > <http://example.com/CollW/CollX> (<L2>) > Overwrite: T > > <rebind xmlns="DAV:"> > <segment>CollX</segment> > <href>/CollW/CollY/CollZ</href> > </rebind> > > Reason: we need to supply both lock tokens as we're removing > a binding > to C3 that is protected by the lock L3, and we're removing the target > binding /CollW/CollY which is protected by the lock L2. This doesn't sound right to me. I'd say that we're removing the binding C3:(CollZ->C1), and hence we need the lock token L3. We're then creating the binding C3:(CollZ->C2), which requires the lock tokens L3 and L2, since C3's state is being modified (hence L3), and C2 is the destination (hence L2). I'm pretty confident of all except the final statement. > we're removing the target > binding /CollW/CollY which is protected by the lock L2. Isn't binding /CollW/CollY/ -- that is, C1:(CollY->C3) -- covered by lock L3? - Jim
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:46:20 UTC