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

RE: Re (2): Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?

From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:08:49 -0700
To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c0f516$3574b320$0400a8c0@xythosjohnhall>
>>The reason why I worded the postcondition this way is that if there is
no version history resource, then the versions are scattered randomly
around the URL namespace, and there is no standard way for a client to
find them again.

What is wrong with:




>> So if anyone wants to reject this compromise on the grounds that we
should *never* allow a 
server to blow away versions because of a VCR deletion, please do so

Our customers needs are directly opposed to that, and materially damaged
by that position.  It has nothing to do with my ability to code the
behavior (not blowing them away is easier, in fact).

If consistency is this important, we should *require* versions to be
blown away, unless the client specifically specifies something else.
That solves the consistency problem without preventing my ability to
serve my customer base.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:08:51 UTC

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