[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Adding a no-op LOCK to mod_dav_svn

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-01-04 01:00:07 CET

On 3 Jan 2003, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:41, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > It could just be part of 'SVNAutoversioning on'. No need to create a
> > whole new directive.
>
> > The danger here is that if we always return 200 for LOCK/UNLOCK, then
> > dav clients will think they've locked a resource, when they haven't.
> > There's a risk that when they PUT, they'll accidentally overwrite
> > somebody else's work.
>
> > But then again, that's true with a normal, non-versioning file server
> > too. So it doesn't seem like a tragedy to me. (In fact, unlike a
> > normal file server, the old version isn't really gone forever!)
>
> The tragedy is not that the clients don't have locking, but that we're
> lying to them. If some clients are overly paranoid (do they actually
> get anything out of obtaining a lock?), then that's sad, but we
> shouldn't escalate by claiming to support a protocol feature we don't
> implement.
>
> I'm a strong -0 on this idea, very close to a -1.

How about starting off with no-op "locking" in a branch, which those
desiring a lying mod_dav_svn could use now, and that those interested in
implementing locking could later take as a starting point and run with?

- Dan, wanting auto-versioning but not wanting to make a liar of mod_dav_svn

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 00:54:47 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.