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

RE: Resource class

From: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:05:57 -0700
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKNOGFKEBJOOOIOOLEEKECBAA.eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
I completely agree with a).  Thanks for all of the details making it very
clear why this is necessary for versioning.

(a) We should extend <DAV:resourcetype> to provide all this classification
    information in a single property.

As far as

> (b) How about extending <DAV:propname/>? such as
> <DAV:propname>
>     <DAV:checked-out/>
> </DAV:propname>
> then the client would get back just the name or a 404 to determine if it
> exists.

I don't see why that's that much different from what we do right now (get
all of the names and see if the one you want is there)

--Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 3:00 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Resource class
>
>
>
>
> [I did send this mail once, but it hasn't appeared, so here's attempt #2]
> ---------------------------
> The issue of determining a versioning resource's classification based on
> the absence (or otherwise) of properties has been raised before on the
> list.  Recently however, (in other contexts) people have shifted in favour
> of extensions to <DAV:resourcetype> to convey more 'type' information.
>
> In support of this shift of opinion, here's my renditioning of
> how a client
> currently determines the resource classification (if, for example, if a
> client were given a URL in a property with no other information) in a
> versioning world.
>
> To get an accurate classification the client has to issue a PROPFIND then
> look at the results as follows (hopefully my layout is not too cryptic):
>
> >>REQUEST
>      PROPFIND /foo HTTP/1.1
>      Host: bar.com
>      Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
>      Content-Length: xxx
>
>      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>      <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
>          <D:prop>
>              <D:resourcetype/>
>              <D:auto-checkout/>
>              <D:checked-in/>
>              <D:checked-out/>
>              <D:version-name/>
>              <D:workspace-checkout-set/>
>              <D:baseline-controlled-collection/>
>              <D:subactivity-set/>
>          </D:prop>
>      </D:propfind>
>
> Interpreting the results
> --------------
> Key: The major classifications are listed below from (1) to (8).
>
> Each entry marked with a plus-sign can exist in a checked-in xor
> checked-out state.
> +
>  <DAV:checked-in> defined -- the resource is checked-in.
>  <DAV:checked-out> defined -- the resource is checked-out.
>
> Each entry marked with an astrix can exist as a collection resource xor a
> non-collection resource.
> *
>  <DAV:resourcetype> value is not <DAV:collection/> -- the
> resource is not a
> collection.
>  <DAV:resourcetype> value is <DAV:collection/> -- the resource is a
> collection.
>
>
> (1+*) Version-controlled resource.
>      <DAV:auto-checkout> defined
>
> (2*) Version.
>      <DAV:version-name> defined
>
> (3) Version history.
>      <DAV:resourcetype> value is <DAV:version-history/>
>
> (4) Workspace.
>      <DAV:resourcetype> value is <DAV:collection/>
>      <DAV:workspace-checkout-set> defined
>
> (5*) Working resource.
>      <DAV:checked-out> defined
>      <DAV:auto-checkout> *not* defined
>
> (6+) Version-controlled configuration.
>      <DAV:baseline-controlled-collection/> defined
>
> (7) Baseline.
>      <DAV:resourcetype> value is <DAV:baseline/>
>
> (8) Activity.
>      <DAV:subactivity-set> defined.
>
>
> Observations
> ----------
> (i) For the most part we only care if a property is defined - i.e., it
> exists, and not what it's value is.  There is currently no way to ask this
> question in WebDAV.
>
> (ii) It would seem that activities should have a <DAV:resourcetype> of
> <DAV:activity>, but I didn't see that in the -15 spec.
>
> (iii) The only way I could see to distinguish a workspace from a 'regular'
> collection was the presence of <DAV:workspace-checkout-set/>
> which it would
> seem is likely a very expensive property to query.
>
>
> Conclusions
> ---------
> (a) We should extend <DAV:resourcetype> to provide all this classification
> information in a single property.
> (b) How about extending <DAV:propname/>? such as
> <DAV:propname>
>     <DAV:checked-out/>
> </DAV:propname>
> then the client would get back just the name or a 404 to determine if it
> exists.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 23:02:22 GMT

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