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

RE: Confusion about what a VCR is

From: Eric Sedlar <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:46:01 -0700
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
The only time this could cause a race condition is if you allow mutable
versions, which I think Geoff tends to block out of his brain because
they are so yucky, and that's basically what you get for using them.
Which begs the question of why we don't just kill that feature in the

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:25 PM
> To: DeltaV
> Subject: Confusion about what a VCR is
> I keep having to revise my model of what a Version-Controlled Resource is,
> or represents, and I think today I finally figured out where some of the
> source of my confusion lies.  The early part of the spec is quite
> clear that
> the VCR and its latest checked-in version are different things:
> "when a method is applied to a version-controlled resource, it is only
> applied to that version-controlled resource, and is not applied to the
> version resource that is currently identified by the
> DAV:checked-in property
> of that version-controlled resource.  Although the content and dead
> properties of a checked-in version-controlled resource are required to be
> the same as those of its current DAV:checked-in version..."
> But the LABEL method takes a different approach:
> "If a LABEL request is applied to a version-controlled resource, the
> operation MUST be applied to the DAV:checked-in version of that
> version-controlled resource."
> For the LABEL method, the VCR is treated as if it is a link to the
> latest-checked-in version, even though elsewhere that's not the case.
> I think this is wrong; a PROPPATCH applied to the VCR changes the
> properties
> of the VCR and not the latest checked-in version.  LABEL should behave the
> same way.
> If LABEL behaviour is not changed, then there's no way of applying a label
> before checking in.  E.g. I can't label the version I'm about to
> check in; I
> have to wait until I've completed the checkin before sending the LABEL
> request.
> lisa
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 15:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC