Re: Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection

The current text handles the case where the directly locked
collection is being added as an internal member of a collection
that is a member of that directly locked collection.

In this case, the resource is already locked (so it does not
"become locked"), and it is directly locked (so it does not
"become indirectly locked").

Your proposed change does not handle this case.

Cheers,
Geoff

Lisa wrote on 12/29/2005 06:14:23 PM:

> 
> Looking closely at the text of GULP, point the third (from 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/ 
> 0177.html>):
> 
> "- If a collection is directly locked by a depth:infinity lock, all
>     members of that collection (other than the collection itself) are
>     indirectly locked by that lock.  In particular, if an internal
>     member resource is added to a collection that is locked by a
>     depth:infinity lock, and if the resource is not locked by that lock,
>     then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock.
>     Conversely, if a resource is indirectly locked with a depth:infinity
>     lock, and if the result of deleting an internal member URI is that
>     the resource is no longer a member of the collection that is
>     directly locked by that lock, then the resource is no longer locked
>     by that lock."
> 
> The part that confuses me is "if the resource is not locked by that 
> lock".  I am not sure how that can be the case, and if it can never 
> happen, then the clause should be removed from the sentence.  Even if 
> it can happen, I think the sentence is even more true without that 
> clause:
> 
>     "In particular, if an internal member resource is added to
>     a collection that is locked by a depth:infinity lock,
>     then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock."
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lisa