Subject: Re: new proposed text for locking overview

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:37:51 +0200

Jason Crawford wrote:
> ...
> I don't like us calling a lock a resource.
> ...
> The other paragraphs you included seem reasonable.

I expected pushback on that wording; but I think it really makes things 
clearer. Anything that has a URI *is* a resource (as per RFC2396 
definition). Saying that it is a resource with internal state makes 
talking about it a lot simpler.

So can you explain *why* you don't like that terminology?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: John Baumgarten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:29:33 -0700

From an implementer's viewpoint and one admittedly much less 
knowledgeable about specifications:

I found it much easier to translate the WebDAV specs into a programming 
architecture by classifying locks and ACEs as "associations".  Rather 
than fundamental objects (read "resources") associations are "tuple" 
(principal-action-resource) relationships between resources, with a 
relationship attribute set.

-Jake

JS Baumgarten
Apple .Mac Backend Server Engineering

+1-408-974-0043
[email-masked]
Loc: VG5-1045   MS: 82-EC
20605 Valley Green Dr, Cupertino CA 95014 USA
www.apple.com

On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I expected pushback on that wording; but I think it really makes 
> things clearer. Anything that has a URI *is* a resource (as per 
> RFC2396 definition). Saying that it is a resource with internal state 
> makes talking about it a lot simpler.
>