Re: Locking functional spec: timeouts

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 01:08, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Yet, this is going to introduce a whole set of goofiness: locks may not
> necessarily have to be 'unlocked' - they can just expire. Ideally, we'd go
> for a lazy expiration model. And, lots of other things need to be thought
> about timeouts as well from a user perspective.

I'm not sure if we have to modify the UI spec at all. The functional
spec just needs an optional timeout field associated with a lock. Only
DAV locks would ever use it. An svn working copy can assume that its
own locks don't time out (since it wouldn't have requested them with a
timeout), and other people's locks timing out is the same as other
people giving up their locks explicitly.

(When accessing the lock table, we would ignore and/or clean up locks
with a timeout in the past, of course.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 15 18:54:40 2004