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

RE: Last Call for DAV:checked-out-vcr Proposal

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:12:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E24CC@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'DeltaV (E-mail)'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>

   From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net]

   You say that your implementation makes it hard to make CHECKIN/UPDATE
   atomic.  On my system, they are naturally atomic.  That is why I want
   the atomic operation offered.

   It might be easier if you reversed the nomenclature.  If instead of
   CHECKIN/UDPATE you thought in terms of UPDATE/CHECKIN the problems would
   probably fall out.

OK, I'm a dufus (:-).  Yes, on my system at least, if you do the
"update" part first (for my system, an in-place checkout, followed by a
PUT/PROPPATCH), then you can easily roll-back if the CHECKIN fails (by
just doing an UNCHECKOUT).

So I retract my concern that an "atomic CHECKIN/UPDATE" would be
a problem to implement (for us, at least).

Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 15:13:05 UTC

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