- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:50:32 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> Which reads: >> >> LD> One could imagine the lock applying to the resource and to all its >> LD> bindings, considering the bindings to be part of the state of the >> LD> resource. If I recall, I think this is the model I'd always assumed >> LD> until GULP. With this model, if A and B are bindings to a resource, >> LD> and a LOCK token to A is successful, then for the duration of the >> lock >> LD> the token is required to change either A or B. >> >> This implies that a binding is part of the state of the resource, and >> I think both RFC2518 and RFC3744 are very clear that it's not. Namely, >> in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.7.5>: > > No, that's not a correct conclusion. This model only implies that all > bindings are covered by the LOCK as well as the resource itself. The > resource state is still the resource state and that doesn't include > *any* bindings. Well, it's what you said. Quoting again: LD> One could imagine the lock applying to the resource and to all its LD> bindings, considering the bindings to be part of the state of the LD> resource. If I recall, I think this is the model I'd always assumed LD> until GULP. With this model, if A and B are bindings to a resource, LD> and a LOCK token to A is successful, then for the duration of the lock LD> the token is required to change either A or B. > It's actually very similar to the model proposed in GULP. In that > model, the LOCK covers one binding as well as the resource. The GULP > model does not imply that the locked binding is part of the state of the > resource either. What a lock covers is a separate concept from what a > resource state includes. Well, it's not completely separate because if affects how Depth 0 locks in collections behave. Anyway, I don't think we'll make any progress unless you tell us exactly which part of GULP you're unhappy with, and how you propose to change it. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 18:52:41 UTC