- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:50:35 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > ... >>> Another option that isn't broadly implemented, if at all, is the >>> support for locks that aren't write locks or aren't exclusive locks >>> (since only exclusive write locks are fully defined). Are there >>> any implementations at all that do locks that aren't write locks? >>> Didn't Adobe or somebody implement shared locks? >> >> >> Me confused. >> >> The only type of locks defined in RFC2518 are write locks. Write >> locks can be shared or exclusive, and there are both servers >> implementing this and clients using it. Looking at >> <http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>, issue #96, the WG has >> discussed this over three years ago and concluced that they are >> indeed implemented. >> > I also figured that shared locks were implemented already although I'm > not sure they satisfy the 2x2 test requirement. But what about I fear I need to make a procedural comment again. The question of shared lock interop *is* on the issues list, it *has* been dicussed three years ago, and it has been marked as resolved. Do you want to re-open that discussion? > non-write locks? Has anybody implemented locks that aren't write locks > and don't advertise themselves as such? <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/e2k3/e2k3/_webdav_locktype_element.asp> > The way this impacts the document is that sections 6 and 7 could be > merged if there are effectively only write locks. Section 6 discusses > locks, section 7 discusses specifically write locks. RFC2518 has splitted the locking feature into some generic elements, and specific write-lock support for a very good reason. I don't see any compelling reason at all to change that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 08:50:44 UTC