lör 2007-12-29 klockan 13:19 +0800 skrev Michael Clark: > AFAICT, we are in agreement here. My point was related to the current > inability to detect the direct filesystem access i.e. with the > DavETagIsolation dav+fs you would have to invalidate the ETag unless you > had some sort of mechanism to detect sub second direct filesystem > accesses (or mandatory locking as you propose) - i.e. invalidate strong > ETag == regenerate strong ETag.
Yes, except for the ==. It's imho fine to fall back on the current mechanism when direct fs modification has been detected. Regards Henrik
