Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>
> I agree. This is relatively simple to implement. The svn client
> already needs to be ready to deal with 'defunct' lock tokens. During
> an update, a server may tell a client, "sorry, your token is dead,
> somebody else released it." Or, it may say, "sorry, your token is
> dead, it has expired." No big deal.
I agree.
I'd even consider implementing lock timeouts as something mod_dav_svn
handles itself, so that the repopsitory wouldn't have to know about lock
timeouts at all.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 19 01:02:58 2004