- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: 1999年9月23日 11:21:46 -0400
- To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-Id: <9909231521.AA07586@tantalum>
<gmc/> After slightly wavering, I'm firmly back in the: "just say no to lock-null resources" camp. We just don't need the complexity of a "non-resource resource" for the minimal gain it provides. Cheers, Geoff From: jamsden@us.ibm.com <jra> There are a large number of situations in authoring environments where transaction semantics are required. WebDAV doesn't (yet) support transactions, and I don't think we should attempt to come up with a lot of special cases (like lock-null resources) supported by the protocol to overcome this important missing function. Rather let's propose an extension that does support transactions. Might be pretty hard with a stateless server though. </jra> <JC> So you're not a fan of lock-null resources either at this stage. That seems consistent. JimA and I have been doing all the talking for the last day. Anyone else want to be heard? :-) </JC> <jra> I don't really care that much one way or the other about lock-null resources. I think they add a lot of complexity to the protocol for little functional gain and wouldn't be opposed to removing them. But if they stay, that's OK too. If lock-null stays, then I think it would be reasonable for delete on a locked resource to change the state of the resource to a lock-null resource. To complete the delete, the client would have to do the unlock. This is at least consistent semantics and allows the protocol to support symmetric resource life-times. </jra>
Received on Thursday, 23 September 1999 11:21:53 UTC