Re: lock-null's Still Locked after MKCOL or PUT conversion?

John Reese wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:37:51 +0100, Julian Reschke
> <> wrote:
>>John Baumgarten wrote:
>>>I've searched through the mail archives and 2518 and 2518bis-06, so
>>>forgive me if this is a well-known issue.
>>>After a lock-null has been converted to a either a collection or
>>>"regular" resource via a MKCOL or PUT, respectively, should the
>>>resulting resource still be locked?
>>In RFC2518: yes. That's the whole point.
>>In RFC2518bis: the concept doesn't exist anymore. LOCK to an unmapped
>>URL creates an empty and locked (non-collection) resource.
>>Best regards, Julian
> And what happens if you MOVE or COPY a resource onto a lock-null
> resource (in RFC 2518)?  I found this hard to deduce based from the
> RFC.

MOVE with Overwrite implicitly deletes the resource, so it will be gone 
(with it's lock): 

The behaviour for COPY will depend on whether the server implements 
RFC2518's definition 
(<>) or 
RFC3253's clarification 
(<>). In 
the latter case (if you supply the lock token), the resource will be 
updated, staying locked.

> In 2518bis, I guess I have the same question -- on the new, empty,
> locked resource, a PUT to overwrite the content retains the LOCK.  But
> do locks remain if a resource is overwritten by a MOVE or COPY?

Same answers.

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Saturday, 29 January 2005 09:07:21 UTC