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

John Baumgarten wrote:
> Julian-
> The advantages of "Namespace-reservation" (NR) resources:
> 1.  NRs do not have the "strange" behavior of existing for some methods, 
> but not for others.
> 2.  Legacy clients that use lock-nulls in the most common way should 
> still work.
> 3.  Conversely, the server is more forgiving for less robust or less 
> protocol-savvy clients that unintentionally lock non-existent resources 
> that they intend to use as collections.
> 4.  The above points are achieved without further complicating COPY or 
> MOVE operations, which have been highly optimized for performance in our 
> environment.

With 1, 2 and I agree (but that also applies to simply creating empty, 
locked resources with no special behaviour).

3) is interesting; I'm not aware of any clients doing this (at least our 
server product doesn't seem to have any clients suffering from it).

So to me this sounds like putting (still) additional complexity into the 
server implementation that's unneeded (but as usual, your mileage my 
vary). Of course things look different if indeed you have to support 
clients that rely on 3). If you do, it would be interesting to the WG to 
learn which clients these are, because they will break with a pure 
RFC2518bis as well...

Best regards, Julian

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

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 19:16:07 UTC