- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:20:12 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 12/14/05 2:17 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> >> One could imagine the lock applying to the resource and to all its >> bindings, considering the bindings to be part of the state of the >> resource. If I recall, I think this is the model I'd always assumed > > Well, I'm not aware of a single server that supports multiple bindings > to one resource, but which considers bindings as part of the state of > the resource. Do you? I was just sort of thinking, if one implemented a server using a XML database, and one used the database locks to implement the DAV LOCK, it seems like you would end up with the lock locking the resource not the URI. Perhaps that would just not be a legal way to implement it. I'm not making an argument one way or another, I was just sort of pondering this and wondering if my assumption that using the database lock to implement LOCK would result in this model.
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 00:23:15 UTC