Subject: Re: DELETE leaving a lock-null resource; was LOCK Scenarios

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:31:25 -0400

<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>

---

From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:21:46 -0400

<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: [email-masked]

   <jra>

   <jra>