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

Re: Directory locking: current goals

From: Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fitz_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-15 19:19:42 CEST

On Oct 15, 2004, at 10:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

Ah yes. This would be fine.

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

Which we're trying to avoid right now.

So, "depth 0 as defined by the WebDAV spec" would be my preference.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 15 19:20:42 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.