Subject: RE: another question on the new .x

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:17:03 -0700

I've implemented (a).  Has anyone implemented one of the
other choices?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kendrick M. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: another question on the new .x

Suppose that a client has created (using OPEN) an open_owner named "ABC".
It then tries to create (using LOCK) a lock_owner with the same
identifying string "ABC".  Does this:
  (a) succeed, and instantiate a new lock_owner with independent seqid
      sequence,
  (b) succeed, but not instantiate a new lock_owner: rather, the
      old open_owner becomes the holder of the lock, and only one
      seqid sequence is maintained, or
  (c) fail with an error (ERR_INVAL?)

- k