Subject: Re: Locking URIs rather than Resources

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:11:50 -0500

<yaron>
Names aren't members of collections, resources are.
</yaron>
This is where you went wrong. Collections don't contain resources, their
members are segments that are bound to some resource managed by the server.
So from the point of view of locking, adding a member to a locked
collection does require a lock token even if locks are on names only.

---

From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:53:00 -0500

From: [email-masked]

   <yaron>

I agree that the statement "names aren't members of collections" is
problematic (the term "member" is ambiguous, since 2518 uses both the
term "member URI" and the term "member resource"), but I don't see
that Yaron went wrong in any way.

He said that in the "URL locking" model, placing a lock on a URL does
not add a new member to a collection, and therefore does not affect
the state of the collection, and therefore does not require the lock
token.  I agree with all this.  Note that Yaron was not saying that he
approved of the URL locking model, but rather was just making sure he
understood what was being proposed before commenting on it (a highly
commendable modus operandi).

Cheers,
Geoff