Re: Locking non-existent paths. Time to discuss.

On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> If RFC2518bis expects a LOCK on a NULL resource to be handled as a
>> 0-byte PUT, then I guess a 2518bis-conformant client *should* expect
>> to see the object listed in the parent. It's no longer a NULL
>> resource.
>
> Right.
>

I'm a bit frustrated, because I feel like we're just guessing what DAV
clients are "likely" to do

Might the client do a LOCK; MKCOL? Then we shouldn't be doing the
0-byte PUT thing. We should allow libsvn_fs to create locks on
nonexistent paths, i.e. truly support lock-nulls.

Might the client do a LOCK; PROPFIND-depth-1? If so, then we should
be actively trying to support the showing lock-nulls within parent
directories. This is easy to do if we do the 0-byte PUT thing, but
somewhat inefficient if libsvn_fs really supports locks on nonexistent
things.

In reality, it seems like clients only ever do LOCK; PUT. How much
guessing do we need to do? How far should we go?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Mar 19 22:08:56 2005