Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:17:07 -0500

<<
We can't redefine DAV: owner.  As you suggest, there are current deployed
uses of DAV:owner and there would indeed be transition issues.
If that's the case, let me take a stab at the transition situation of
Julian's proposal.

Julian proposes a second field for information called DAV:lockowner that is
a child of DAV:lockinfo.  The field is authored by the client and simply
stored unmodifed by the server.  Julian has defined it in such a way that
it's clear what "unmodified" means.

So...

Old clients will write to DAV:owner only.  Not to the new field.
New clients presumably will write to both the old deprecated DAV:owner and
the new DAV:lockowner.

New servers will (attempt to) preserve both fields.

What will old servers do if they receive a lock info with the new
DAV:lockowner field but not the old DAV:owner field?  What will old servers
do if the client provides both?   Do some of the interop folks know how
current "old" servers are coded?

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:40:40 +0100

> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:17 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: Daniel Brotsky; Clemm, Geoff; Julian Reschke; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
>
> <<

An old server that doesn't ignore the new element would be broken. Is
anybody aware of a server that has this bug?