Re: default workspace vs. set-default method vs. default label

Damon Poole (damon@ede.com)
Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:30:24 -0500


Message-Id: <199903142130.QAA15079@roxie.ede.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:35:05 EST."
             <9903142035.AA17060@tantalum> 
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:30:24 -0500
From: Damon Poole <damon@ede.com>
Subject: Re: default workspace vs. set-default method vs. default label 


Geoff writes:
> In order to provide interoperability, the level-1 technique for
> "setting the default revision" of a versioned-resource should work
> when applied to a versioned-resource being maintained by a level-2
> server.
> 
> If a level-2 server uses a default workspace, with the
> revision-selection-rule of the default workspace determining default
> revision selection, then one would have to provide a "set-default"
> method for level-1, and in general, a "set-default" might fail
> against an arbitrary revision-selection-rule.

> So from my perspective, the best choice is to get rid of the notion of
> a "default workspace", and stick with the notion of a "default label".
> Then you just set the default label when you want to adjust the
> default revision of any particular versioned-resource, and you require
> that CHECKIN automatically move the default label to the new
> revision, if predecessor of the new revision is the current default
> revision.

Please pardon me if I'm way off base here. I think I'm mostly up to date
but I may have missed something along the way. Anyway, it seems to me
that replacing the default workspace with a default label would be giving up a 
lot of flexibility and adding a fair amount of extra work in some situations.

For instance, I assume you can arbitrarily change the definition of the 
default workspace to use a different branch or label whereas to get the same 
effect with labels you would have to relabel everything.

It may take some effort to make sure that the set-default cannot fail or that
there is some sort of default-default (!) in case of failure, but it seems
worth it in light of the potential loss in ease of use.

On the other hand, it also seems like the default label could be the
interim solution until such time as the set-default failure case is
adequately resolved.

Cheers,

Damon Poole
Ede Development