Re: Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection

So an example of this occurring is a COPY of a locked collection to a 
location inside the locked collection ( to make a copy inside itself).  
  Still, doesn't the new member become indirectly locked?  It's not the 
same resource as the original locked collection.  Since it's not the 
same resource, I disagree with your point -- I think it's still 
accurate to say that the new member (the copy) becomes indirectly 
locked.

Perhaps another tenet of our locking model is that a copy of a locked 
resource does not create a new lock, nor is it directly or indirectly 
locked by the original lock, unless the original locked resource is a 
collection and the copy destination is a member of that locked 
collection.

Lisa

On Dec 29, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> 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