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

RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:14:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E256B@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I have a working draft that addresses the following issues that
have been raised since draft-16:

-	Added XML token for various postconditions (Peter).
-	1.6: Clarified when 403 and 409 are to be used (Peter).
-	3.2.2: Replaced DAV:auto-checkout and DAV:auto-checkin with
DAV:auto-version (Lisa).
-	8.2: Clarified the different between LABEL/set and LABEL/add
(Peter).
-	8.2: Changed DAV:must-not-be-checked-out to DAV:must-be-checked-in
-	12.6: Changed DAV:create-empty-baseline postcondition to be
DAV:create-new-baseline (Peter).
-	12.6: Fixed DAV:must-have-no-version-controlled-members text
(Edgar).

Unfortunately, I currently have no connectivity to the DeltaV web site
(apparently a virus-related IT issue), so I cannot post the working draft
yet, but the wording on DAV:auto-version is just the one I posted to the
working group.

With regard to Lisa's specific question, I was assuming that an empty
value for the DAV:auto-version property would indicate no auto-versioning
functionality for that resource.  I notice that we are missing a "?" in
the DTD, which I will add so that an empty value is allowed.  Does
anyone prefer an explicit DAV:none value for this case instead?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:05 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; 'DeltaV'
Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin


I assume there's also an empty value for servers that don't do
auto-versioning?  Or does the property disappear?

I still haven't seen a draft with this replaced.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:55 AM
> To: 'DeltaV'
> Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin
>
>
> Oops.  I had "auto-checkout" in a couple of places where I meant
> to have "auto-version" (cut'n'paste can be risky :-).  Here's the
> fixed proposal:
>
>
> 3.2.2	DAV:auto-version
>
> If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout-checkin, when a
> modification request (such as PUT/PROPPATCH) is applied to a
> checked-in version-controlled resource, the request is automatically
> preceded by a checkout and followed by a checkin operation.
>
> If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout-unlocked-checkin, when a
> modification request is applied to a checked-in version-controlled
> resource, the request is automatically preceded by a checkout
> operation.  If the resource is not write-locked, the request is
> automatically followed by a checkin operation.
>
> If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout, when a modification
> request is applied to a checked-in version-controlled resource, the
> request is automatically preceded by a checkout operation.
>
> If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:locked-checkout, when a
> modification request is applied to a write-locked checked-in
> version-controlled resource, the request is automatically preceded by
> a checkout operation.
>
> If a write-locked resource was automatically checked out, when the
> write lock is removed (such as from an UNLOCK or lock timeout), if the
> resource has not yet been checked in, the removal of the write lock is
> automatically preceded by a checkin operation.
>
> A server MAY refuse to allow the value of the DAV:auto-version
> property to be modified.
>
> <!ELEMENT auto-versionout
>  (checkout-checkin | checkout-unlocked-checkin | checkout |
> locked-checkout)
> >
> <!ELEMENT checkout-checkin EMPTY>
> <!ELEMENT checkout-unlocked-checkin EMPTY>
> <!ELEMENT checkout EMPTY>
> <!ELEMENT locked-checkout EMPTY>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:11 PM
> To: 'DeltaV'
> Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin
>
>
> Clearly there is significant support for going back to
> DAV:auto-version (as opposed to DAV:auto-checkout,DAV:auto-checkin).
> If nobody objects to going back to DAV:auto-version , I'm willing to
> do so (I believe I was the most enthusiastic supporter of the original
> switch to auto-checkout and auto-checkin).
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 20:50:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT