Re: unclear on shared lock support
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke <at> gmx.de>
2008-11-05 15:50:52 GMT
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:50:08PM -0800, John Meissen wrote:
>> I consider shared vs exclusive to be a lock attribute. There are other
>> requested attributes, like timeout, that a server is free to ignore.
>> I interpreted the RFC as allowing me to ignore the request to make the
>> lock shared, and permitting me to create the lock in the mode I support
>> (exclusive), especially since the actual lock characteristics are
>> detailed in the response body. Hence there shouldn't be any confusion
>> on the client's part since it can see what type of lock was created.
> Hmmm, interesting.
> I agree that neon/litmus should check that the lock returned by LOCK
> matches the lock type requested, and fail/skip subsequent shared lock
> tests appropriately.
> But I don't agree that it's a valid interpretation of 4918 to downgrade
> the lock type from exclusive to shared. There is specific language in
> 4918 explaining that the timeout is a "suggestion" made by the client -
> there is no such language in the section on the lock type.
> If you can get consensus on the DAV list (w3c-dist-auth at w3.org) that
> this behaviour is to be permitted then I'll update litmus to SKIP rather
> than FAIL if the shared lock request is downgraded.
No, I don't think this would be correct.