Re: [PATCH] use lock token in non-URI form in start_put

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

If it is a prefix that happens to be part of the URI, but must not be used
by the client code as a lock token, would it not be better to store the
token in lock->token to begin with?

The URI form of the lock token is suitable for all other occurrences
lock token usage; that is, only start_put needs the non-URI form,
while the rest use the URI form.

That's why I only changed how start_put uses the lock token; changing
lock token just for the sake of start_put doesn't seem very effective
to me.

This is unsafe.  What if lock->token does not contain a colon?  Even if it
happens to be the case now, in your setup, it might change, or there might
be mistakes in the server code.  We should always play it safe if we
cannot control the other side's code.

Point noted. I'll try to think of something else.

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan