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

Re: Re (4): collection version resources

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:37:39 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569D6.005063E6.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


Come on ... it is no more complex for a client to check for the three
options responses if they require all that functionality.
Nor is it complex for a client to lay down a set of consistent labels to
get a configuration, and get a useful recovery of a configuration using a
deep UPDATE.  I see only benefits for keeping them separate.

Tim

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> on 2001-01-16 02:21:14 PM

Please respond to "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>

To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: Re (4): collection version resources





   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com

   I agree with Greg that simpler uses of workspace are feasible.

Feasible, for sure.  But since this imposes a complexity cost on
clients, do those simpler uses warrant the cost on the client?

Note that a client can always use whatever subset of the server
provided functionality that it wants, so if we say that a workspace
server MUST support merging and baselining, this does not mean
that a workspace client must use that functionality.  So the
cost here is only on the server.

Again, I can go either way, but the fact that the primary motivation
for the "workspace" concept is to support unambiguous merging and
baselining does make it seem like a workspace implementation is
unlikely to come without them.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 09:40:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT