Re: checkout/checkin/uncheckout vs. lock/unlock

Slein, Judith A (JSlein@crt.xerox.com)
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:46:46 -0500


Message-ID: <201BB34B3A73D1118C1F00805F1582E8B76CDA@x-wb-0128-nt8.wrc.xerox.com>
From: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>,
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:46:46 -0500 
Subject: RE: checkout/checkin/uncheckout vs. lock/unlock

I also agree with this for different reasons.  I've heard from people who
would like to be able to use DAV versioning, but don't want to use DAV
locking.  So keeping the two as independent as possible would be a good
thing.

Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
jslein@crt.xerox.com
(716)422-5169
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:30 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> 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 ietf-dav-versioning@w3.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.
>