Subject: comment on CAP, section 4.4.3, deferred requirements

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:30:18 -0500

Hi,

Section 4.4.3 of CAP Requirements states:

4.4.3   Deferred Requirements for Component Management

   CAP is not required to specify:
...
     - Lock access to calendar.

I think the wording is vague. During conversations at the working group
meeting it became clear that "Lock access to calendar" was about
transaction locking. Someone else stated that other methods could be used
to avoid race conditions on operations, such as scheduling a resource.

Why not remove "Lock access to calendar" from the "deferred" section and
instead add to section 4.4 (CAP MUST specify, subject to access control):

- How the CUA can be notified and resolve race conditions that may occur
when creating a component (event/to-do/journal) on a calendar (direct
booking).

Paul

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:26:39 -0800 (PST)

> From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: comment on CAP, section 4.4.3, deferred requirements
> 
> Hi,
> 

Some want 'calendar' locking, some (me among others) want 'component' locking.
As in please don't break my locking that I do at a finer grain level by
a CUA that thinks that the entire calendar must be locked.

Resource groups and resource pools are not in the first version of CAP.
So for now its a CS implementation issue.

Later some of us want to submit a draft for resource groups and
resource pools. At that time locking must be addressed.

> when creating a component (event/to-do/journal) on a calendar (direct

Via a yet to be defined reply/error status messages.

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://www.royer.com/People/Doug
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL