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

Chris Kaler (ckaler@microsoft.com)
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:41:15 -0800


Message-ID: <4FD6422BE942D111908D00805F3158DF0A757935@RED-MSG-52>
From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
To: "'Slein, Judith A'" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>,
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:41:15 -0800
Subject: RE: checkout/checkin/uncheckout vs. lock/unlock

I'd like to hear who these people are.  Most people I talk to either do
implicit versioning (don't want to be bothered by it, just make it happen)
or use exclusive versioning (which requires locking).  So I find this
requirement confusing.  Not to mean its invalid, I've just never heard it
before.

Chris

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com]
		Sent:	Thursday, November 05, 1998 10:47 AM
		To:	'Geoffrey M. Clemm'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
		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.
		>