Subject: Re: If: header and "parent" resource checking

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:13:04 -0400

Greg Stein says:
Personally, I'd just refuse to create locknull resources in a versioned
space. Maybe even disable locking altogether.

What does everyone else think? Do we need locking and versioning together?
We're trying to make them work together, and leverage locking semantics
whenever possible. But it hasn't been easy, and its cost us some
flexibility.

---

From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:58:27 -0400

I agree that both of these cases are important.

Tim

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
29-05-00 11:24 PM

        To:     [email-masked], [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: If: header and "parent" resource checking

   From: [email-masked]

   What does everyone else think? Do we need locking and versioning 
together?
   We're trying to make them work together, and leverage locking semantics
   whenever possible. But it hasn't been easy, and its cost us some
   flexibility.

This question has two parts:

- If you are writing a versioning client, do you care whether your
versioning server gives you any locking capability (and if so, should
it be compatible with locking defined for non-versioning servers)?

- If you are writing a versioning server, do you care that versioning
unaware locking clients work against your server?

In my case, I care about the former, to control access of multiple
clients to the same working resource, and I care about the latter,
because there are some very important versioning unaware locking clients.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Henry Harbury <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 13:14:50 -0700

I agree with Geoff - we need to respect DAV locking as best we can.
-- Henry.

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 8:24 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: If: header and "parent" resource checking

   From: [email-masked]

Cheers,
Geoff