Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:29:44 -0500 Message-Id: <9811031829.AA27687@tantalum> From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: checkout/checkin/uncheckout vs. lock/unlock Why was the checkout/checkin/uncheckout functionality assigned to the lock/unlock methods? As I recall, in our last meeting, we agreed (or at least, all of us but Chris agreed, and Chris reluctantly accepted :-) that they each really needed to be a separate method. There was a proposal to allow you to optionally "lock" a working resource as part of the checkout command (which is fine with me), but making the checkout command actually be a variant of the "lock" makes no sense to me. - What if you want to leave the working resource available for anyone to modify? In what sense have you created a lock? - When you checkin a resource, you have now made an immutable revision. In what sense have you "unlocked" anything? - Converely, when you "uncheckout" a working resource, you delete it. In what sense have you "locked" anything? - When you "checkout" a versioned resource, you create a new (working) resource. A "lock" is not something you expect to create a new resource. So I propose that we not overload lock/unlock, but that we have 3 new methods: CHECKIN, CHECKOUT, UNCHECKOUT. Cheers, Geoff Note: my previous message to firstname.lastname@example.org appears to have been distributed fine (or at least, it make it back to me with no trouble. So whatever problem Chris was having seems to have either been fixed, or is a local problem at his home mailing site.