Subject: RE: refresh LOCK for multiple locks

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:54:22 -0500

If you mean locks implied by a Tagged-List in the If: header, then that
  just doesn't make sense :-)

That's what I meant.  I don't know if it makes sense or not, but I'm
perfectly willing to say that "it" is not supported.

And I agree that 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.

Now I also recognize that changing this might break some clients/servers.
Before we could change this,
we'd have to come to a consensus that we're willing to change our
implementations.

J.

---

From: Greg Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:13:50 -0800 (PST)

> perfectly willing to say that "it" is not supported.

Hrm; I guess it could make some sense to impute the URIs in a tagged-list
as some kind of input parameter. We do with the locktokens, after all :-)

> on the presence of a specified lock on some specified resource.

IMO, this would have been the clearest way to do this. It's that pedantic
trap again. As JimW explained "well, we saw it as a precondition, and
preconditions are specified with the If: header, and ..."

> we'd have to come to a consensus that we're willing to change our

Well, Office 2000 uses LOCKs and could be argued as one of the more
popular clients :-). If it doesn't send a Lock-Token header, then we're
out of luck. The spec would then need to specify behavior in the absence
of the Lock-Token header. Anybody know if it sends a Lock-Token header
when it refreshes its lock?

Personally: I'd be fine changing mod_dav. Simply a lot of stuff, and I
really think its the clearest mechanism for the protocol.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

---

From: "Geoffrey Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:48:45 -0500

From: <[email-masked]>
> ... it seems somewhat odd that we use the IF header to determine
UNLOCK
only
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