Subject: Re: refresh LOCK for multiple locks

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:51:05 -0500

Anyone that has a locking server or locking client (or knows of one) that
would be significantly affected by this alteration or by any other
locking changes, please send me a note or post it to this list.    I'll add
you to the locking mailing list.

I just like to make sure I have a complete list of servers/clients (with
email addresses) that are resistant to changes to locking due to
2518 compatibility issues and client base.

--- note from Geoff Clemm follows -----

From: <[email-masked]>
> ... it seems somewhat odd that we use the IF header to determine
> what locks are to be refreshed.  I would think this should work just as
UNLOCK
> does.  That's not to say people can't use an IF header, but that's not
how
> they specify which of the locks is to be refreshed.  The IF header would
only
> be for consistancy checking if the client wanted the refresh to be
contingent
> on the presence of a specified lock on some specified resource.

I agree with Jason (and others) that this would be the preferable way for
a lock refresh to work.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Jim Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:31:09 +0100

>you to the locking mailing list.

This change would not affect the Python WebDAV server, because it does not
implement lock refreshing at all.