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

Re: disjoint baselines

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:39:49 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569F7.005477BE.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


> Consider that I have two resources:
>
>     /non-vcr-1/vcr-a/foo
>     /non-vcr-2/vcr-b/bar

Assuming foo and bar are VCRs themselves.

> I put both of these resources under baseline control and
> create a baseline from them. What does the DAV:baseline-collection
> collection look like? Does it include "filler" collections to
> reach the VCRs that are under baseline control?
>
> Concretely, would it look something like:
>
>     /BCs/b72/non-vcr-1/vcr-a/foo
>     /BCs/b72/non-vcr-2/vcr-b/bar

Yes, this is required for the baseline to capture the namespace of the
configuration.

> And would non-vcr-* contain *only* the children necessary to reach the
baselined values?

I'm planning on 'yes', otherwise these would be empty, filler collections
-- not very useful.

> Same applies to "/" -- does it contain just non-vcr-*, or would
> /BCs/b72/ contain other bindings?

only those that were required to reach VCRs.

> [ this doesn't apply in the Subversion scenario, so I'm not
> personally worried, but it appears to be a "hole" in the draft. ]
>
> Note that my property proposal would resolve the situation. Each
> VCR under baseline control would have a path to its corresponding
> VCR in the BC.

Agreed.  Though I've not figured out yet how the proposed property works
when the VCR is a member of multiple baseline-controlled collections.

>  Thus, the BC could look like:
>
>     /BCs/b72/1/vcr-a/foo
>     /BCs/b72/2/vcr-b/bar
>
> (i.e. "1" and "2" are computed as a way to differentiate each
> disjoint set of resources)

It is an important property of baselines that they capture the namespace of
the configuration, so collapsing the namespace this way into the 'disjoint
sets' would be a Bad Thing.

> The paths attached to the "public" VCRs would be:
>
>     /non-vcr-1/       n/a
>       vcr-a/          "1/vcr-a"
>         foo           "1/vcr-a/foo"
>       vcr-b/          "1/vcr-b"
>         bar           "1/vcr-b/bar"
>
>
> Hmm. Actually, to be pedantic, I only put two resources under
> baseline control. The BC would thus look like:
>
>     /BCs/b72/1/foo
>     /BCs/b72/2/bar

Two resources?  Then I assume the two resources that you put under baseline
control are 'vcr-a' and 'vcr-b', so the BC would look like this:
               /BCsb72/foo
               /BCs/b88/bar


Tim
Received on Sunday, 18 February 2001 10:23:15 GMT

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