- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: 1999年10月19日 14:32:08 -0400
- To: bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter)
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <8525680F.00657393.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
ccjason> So you are suggesting that they don't need to be *globally* ccjason> unique as long as they are unique within the cluster? wjc> No, actually. I'm still saying unique-within-resource. (My only wjc> caveat is that it's kind of vague to me what this cluster example is wjc> all about, so I've interpreted it to support what I'm saying. :-) If wjc> there are multiple hands in the cookie jar for the same resource, they wjc> just need a private agreement that will keep them from reaching for wjc> the same cookie. Bill, I can't speak for JimW's meaning of a cluster, but let me give you another interpretation... First... I assume the existance of depth locks and shared locks. Secondly... you seem to understand that the token needs to be unique within the resource. Now an example.... LOCK /a/b/ shared depth. LOCK /m/n shared BIND /a/b/n to the resource at /m/n Now after the bind, the resource /a/b/n inherits an additional lock. If both locks used the same token, now the resource has two locks with the same token. You've already recognized this as a bad thing. In a server that supports cross server bindings... the domain of necessary uniqueness extends to all servers that cooperate on bindings. As far as being *globally* unique. I don't have an explanation for that. Perhaps JimW and Yaron do. (I didn't fully understand their examples.) But requiring global uniqueness seems like a small price to pay. J.
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 1999 14:30:37 UTC