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

UPDATE with activity source

From: Roy Seto <Roy.Seto@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:58:31 -0700
Message-ID: <3BBB5FD7.A41ADB62@oracle.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I am following up this discussion in a separate thread
for clarity.

Yesterday, I wrote:

   Possible extensions

   - Activity feature, update feature: Define the
     semantics of UPDATE where the source is an
     activity. Use case: Provide a performant standard
     way for clients to ensure that the members of a
     workspace select the latest version of an
     activity. This is key to support the concept of
     merging to an activity (by merging to a workspace
     which selects the latest versions in that
     activity). (Note: ideally, this extension would
     also modify generic UPDATE marshalling so the
     DAV:update element had a DAV:source child element,
     like MERGE does, instead of a DAV:version
     element. An activity resource is not a version
     resource).

Geoff replied:

   I find this not very compelling.  An activity is a
   logical change set.  Simply "setting" some of your
   versions to those selected by some change set sounds
   like a great way to hide parts of existing change
   sets, and making your workspace inconsistent.  So
   "MERGE" on an activity makes sense to me, but
   "UPDATE" does not.  Perhaps you could develop the
   use case in some more detail?

My more detailed discussion follows below.

--

Change proposal

  Editorial level change: Modify the marshalling of
  UPDATE in Section 7.1 so DAV:update contains a
  DAV:source element instead of a DAV:version
  element. This would make the UPDATE marshalling more
  consistent with the MERGE marshalling. More
  importantly, it would make it simpler to extend
  UPDATE to accept sources which were not version
  resources if there was a consensus to do so (possibly
  in the future).

  Feature extension: In addition to the editorial level
  change, add additional UPDATE semantics to Section 13
  (the activity feature). Informally, UPDATE with an
  activity source would set the DAV:checked-in version
  of each checked-in member of the request-URL to the
  latest version in the source activity's
  DAV:activity-version-set, if such a version existed.

Use case

  My overall use case for this feature extension is the
  same one I posted a couple days ago in

 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001OctDec/0011.html

  As I will explain below, I would like to use UPDATE
  with an activity source to implement step 4 in the
  following overall use case:

  My implementation has a requirement that the changes
  in multiple activities be logically merged into a
  shared line of descent upon completion. I would like
  to model the shared line of descent as an activity.

  Here's a summary of my overall use case:

  1. Each user's client initializes a separate
     workspace so its version-controlled members'
     DAV:activity-set values include the shared
     activity. I'll call this the "integration
     activity" for the rest of this discussion.

  2. Each user's client issues MKACTIVITY to create a
     non-shared activity for making changes on a
     separate line of descent from the integration
     activity. I'll call this the "isolation activity"
     for the rest of this discussion. The client then
     PROPPATCHES the DAV:current-activity-set of its
     workspace to the isolation activity and issues a
     number of CHECKOUT, GET, PUT, and CHECKIN requests
     whose request-URLs are members of the workspace.

  3. At certain times while working on their isolation
     activities, users would like to logically merge
     the latest versions in the integration activity's
     DAV:activity-version-set to their workspaces. (The
     DAV:auto-activity-checkin flag to activity merge,
     which Geoff is adding as the resolution of a
     different discussion, makes this work cleanly.)

  4. When users complete work on their isolation
     activities, their clients issue a series of
     requests so that the changes in the isolation
     activities are logically merged to the integration
     activity. This is where I think it would be useful
     to use UPDATE with an activity source.

  To implement step 4 in the use case above, my thought
  is to have the client identify a workspace which
  selects the latest version in the integration
  activity, if such a version exists, for each
  version-controlled member of that workspace. Then the
  client would PROPPATCH the DAV:current-activity-set
  of that workspace to the integration activity, and
  request a MERGE where the request-URL was the
  workspace and the source was the isolation
  activity. Client completion of the MERGE would
  guarantee that the latest version in the integration
  activity was a descendant of the latest version in
  the isolation activity at the time of the MERGE from
  the isolation activity.

  Now, how would the client ensure that each
  version-controlled member of a workspace selected the
  latest version in the integration activity before
  using that workspace as the request-URL for the MERGE
  from the isolation activity? If the workspace members
  were under baseline control, one way would be to
  UPDATE the workspace with baselines which selected
  versions in the integration activity, and then MERGE
  the integration activity into the workspace to select
  the latest version. Another way would be to UPDATE
  each version-controlled member of the workspace so it
  selected the DAV:root-version of its
  DAV:version-history, and then MERGE the integration
  activity into the workspace - this would be simplest
  if the client knew that all root versions of the
  version-controlled collection members of the
  workspace had no bindings. (Thanks to my colleague
  Alison Macmillan for pointing out this option.)

  I feel the fastest and most straightforward solution
  would be if the client could issue an UPDATE whose
  request-URL was the workspace and whose source was
  the integration activity. Is there an equally fast
  and straightforward solution already available in
  draft-18 which I have overlooked?

Roy
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 14:54:42 GMT

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