Subject: GULP: revised exclusive locking rule

From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:03:22 -0500

The revised rule is as follows:

************

Two locks are said to "overlap" if the targets of those locks are
equal or if one of the locks is a depth:infinity lock and the target
of that lock is a prefix of the target of the other lock.  If a
request attempts to add a type T lock to a resource that has an
overlapping exclusive type T lock with a different token, the request
MUST fail.  Similarly, if a request attempts to add an exclusive type
T lock to resource that already has an overlapping type T lock with a
different token, the request MUST fail.

************

This will then cause the desired failure when:
- /a/b/c exists but /a/b/c/d.html does not
- /a/b has a depth:infinity exclusive lock
- an attempt is made to place a depth:infinity exclusive lock on /a/b/c/d.html

Cheers,
Geoff