- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: 1999年10月14日 10:23:30 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-Id: <9910141423.AA19142@tantalum>
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com <jra> We could eliminate lock-null resources, and keep the ability to reserve a name in the namespace if LOCK on a null resource created a resource with an empty body and locked it. Since LOCK on a null resource isn't going to respond with 404 Not Found anyway, it might as well create the resource. </jra> Having LOCK create a null resource as a side effect? This can't be "no control coupling" Jim Amsden talking here! (:-). But seriously, I could easily live with this proposal. Although I am aesthetically against control coupling of this kind (i.e. creating a resource and locking a resource should be two separate and orthogonal requests), I could live with it if that's what it takes to get rid of lock null resources. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 14 October 1999 10:23:32 UTC