Re: Directory locking: current goals

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> It seems that the consensus is that recursive directory locking is too
> complex and riddled with edge-cases for us to include it in the current
> round of locking design. So what do we want to do with regard to
> locking directories? As I see it, we have two choices:
>
> - Depth 0 lock: lock only the directory properties. I don't know how
> useful this might be.
>
> - Depth 1 lock: lock the directory properties and the contents of the
> directory. That is, no other user is able to add or delete files from
> the directory, nor to modify any of the files in the directory.
>
> I'm leaning toward the depth 1 lock right now, but I'd like to hear from
> the rest of the list on this
>
> -Fitz

I think it would be beneficial to keep terminology in sync with WebDAV.
A shallow lock in WebDAV (depth = 0) locks the collection (properties
and collection membership), so it would be a mix of the two levels you
suggest.

A depth=1 lock does not exist in WebDAV; the only other supported value
is deoth=infinity which locks all descendants as well.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org