Perhaps you could explain how one gets multiple bindings when not using an XML database? On 12/14/05 6:33 PM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I'm not aware of XML providing a mechanism for defining multiple bindings > to the same resource, so I don't see how an XML database implementation > bears on this discussion. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > > Cullen wrote on 12/14/2005 07:20:12 PM: >> > >> > 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 04:22:28 UTC