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

A non-forking server, precussor revisited.

From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:06:01 -0700
To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c0f505$0d52b6a0$0400a8c0@xythosjohnhall>


In my first reading of the specification, I remind myself that I
probably don't fully understand the spec or how people envision that it
be implemented.

I note that there is support for both a forking and a non-forking
server. A server does not have to implement features that allow people
to 'fork' version controlled resources. I appreciate that. Some
situations and clients do require that capacity, but many other systems
would like to do a 'simple' versioning system and don't require this.

But it seems that the separation isn't clean. If I don't support
forking, UPDATE, or MERGE, then I see no reason at all to keep track of
precursor-set. 

Geoff said precursor-set was only one href, but I thought it was each
and every href that had ever been copied on top of a versioned resource
-- so it is an unlimited set of href's.

So I would strongly prefer that precursor-set be optional.  An
alternative would be that an implementation MAY not track precursor-set
and MAY set it equal to predecessor-set IF it doesn't support MERGE or
UPDATE.
 

	
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 15:06:02 GMT

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