W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: FW: Meeting Notes for the 50th IETF Proceedings

From: Fay, Chuck <CFay@filenet.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:41:17 -0700
Message-ID: <C3AF5E329E21D2119C4C00805F6FF58F065BFCDC@hq-expo2.filenet.com>
To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: "'jamsden@us.ibm.com'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
I'm glad to see from the meeting notes that I wasn't the only one who
wondered about Core versus Basic (Core + checkout + fork control).  I agree
with Mark and Larry that Core is sufficient to implement versioning, and
with Eric that some clients will be perfectly happy to deal with Core-level
servers.  So I believe DeltaV should have a package which is just Core.  I
would not replace Core with Basic.  Given that decision, I would rename
Basic to avoid the implication that it's the minimum package, or otherwise
make it clear that Core is the minimum.

I disagree with Geoff and JimW that adding checkout and fork control is low
cost for any server wishing to be DeltaV-compliant.  Recall that checkout
requires mutable VCRs on the server which hold intermediate state between
checkout and checkin, whereas Core has no such requirement.  Core allows all
server-resident resources to be immutable, which is arguably a more
consistent model than the mixed model with checkout (mutable checked-out
VCRs, everything else immutable).  For existing versioning servers that
disallow mutable objects, the cost of supporting checkout is non-trivial,
because code would have to be written to subvert the fundamental design of
the server.

--Chuck Fay 
FileNET Corporation, 3565 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 
phone:  (714) 327-3513, fax:  (714) 327-5076, email:  cfay@filenet.com
 
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 21:48:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT