W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Deletion semantics for versioning metadata

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:36:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10D9FA1@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Ooops.  I answered a totally different question than Tim asked.
In particular, I answered the question "Is atomic checkin of the
checkouts against an activity a SHOULD or a MUST".  For that, I
said "SHOULD".

But the question he *asked* was, "Should the property updates be
atomic with the delete".  For that I say MUST.
A dangling reference introduces the possibility that
the reference will mistakenly be later bound to a different resource,
which violates the semantics of those properties.  Internally,
an implementation can create dangling references, but the protocol
should require that it detect such dangling references and strip
them out before returning the property value.


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:48 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Deletion semantics for versioning metadata

I believe it should be a SHOULD.  There are a variety of versioning
repositories that do not provide atomic group checkin behavior, and
it is a reasonable server value-add to guarantee atomic behavior.
A client can simply report the error, so it doesn't significantly
complicate client implementations.


   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
   Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:30:16 +0000

   Is that 'should' a SHOULD or a MUST?

   There are likely servers that cannot achieve an 'atomic delete with
   multiple resource property updates'.


   "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> on 2000-11-19 06:08:03

   Please respond to "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>

   To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   Subject:  Deletion semantics for versioning metadata

   Greg has asked that we clarify the results of deleting things
   like working resources, versions, version histories, etc.

   I believe it is sufficient for us to say that if a server allows you
   to delete such a resource, that all the versioning properties of other
   resources that refer to that resource should be updated to no longer
   refer to the deleted resource (I'd probably enumerate those properties
   to make sure there is no misunderstanding).

   Any objections?

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:37:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC