Subject: RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:04 -0500

From: Jason Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]]

   On Monday, "Clemm, Geoff" wrote:
   >
   > How about:
   >
   > (DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed): If the collection already
   > contains a binding with the specified path segment, and if that
   > binding is protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate token
   > MUST be specified in an If request header.

   I suppose that covers it.  Hopefully the reader understands the
   situations that that covers.

I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e.
defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing
to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the
binding draft.

   One question though... does it have to be a write-lock?  I suspect
   this precondition even applies to non-write locks.

Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write
locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks
may have some day.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Brian Korver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:36 -0800

> to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the

Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more
explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful
about including some of GULP?

> locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks

-brian
[email-masked]