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

Re: "Closing" an activity

From: Roy Seto <Roy.Seto@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 10:55:04 -0700
Message-ID: <3BC096F8.2A27F20B@oracle.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
One more thing, I also looked at DeltaV draft-18
Section 1.8, which says

   If a write-locked resource has a non-computed
   property defined by this document, the property
   value MUST NOT be changed by a request unless the
   appropriate lock token is included in the request.

But since 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 define the
DAV:activity-version-set and DAV:activity-checkout-set
properties of an activity as computed, it still holds
that write locks on activity resources do not restrict
checkouts or checkins in that activity. 

Someone please correct me if I've missed something.

Thanks,
Roy

Roy Seto wrote:
> 
> I'm following up on this discussion from
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001OctDec/0021.html
> 
> in a separate thread. At this point, I'm just looking
> for clarification whether my interpretation of the
> spec is accurate.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>    - Activity feature: Is there an interoperable way to
>      "close" an activity (that is, prevent any more
>      checkouts or checkins in that activity)? Followup:
>      if not, how much demand would there be for
>      standardizing this concept?
> 
> Geoff replied:
> 
>      I suggest we should soon start a follow-on "change
>      request" working group (we could start under the
>      auspices of the WebDAV working group).  In
>      particular, we would then discuss various states
>      that an activity could be in, and how to
>      standardize transitions between those states (is
>      PROPPATCH enough?).  Minimally, we could decide on
>      some standard XML element for the state field of
>      an activity, and a few "standard" state values.
>      Perhaps a BOF at the Dec IETF?
> 
> --
> 
> Continuing this discussion, Geoff's proposal sounds
> reasonable to me, though I'm not sure I have any
> activity states to propose beyond "closed" and "not
> closed."
> 
> To validate my understanding of the spec, it seems to
> me that there is currently no interoperable way to
> prevent checkouts and checkins from occurring in an
> activity.
> 
> In particular, RFC 2518 write locks on the activity
> resource don't do this because RFC 2518 Section 9.3
> says
> 
>    While those without a write lock may not alter a
>    property on a resource it is still possible for the
>    values of live properties to change, even while
>    locked, due to the requirements of their schemas.
>    Only dead properties and live properties defined to
>    respect locks are guaranteed not to change while
>    write locked.
> 
> So taking a write lock on the activity resource does
> not restrict changes on that activity's
> DAV:activity-version-set or DAV:activity-checkout-set
> property values.
> 
> Also, draft-ietf-webdav-acl-06 Section 3.2 says
> 
>    The [DAV:write] privilege controls methods that
>    modify the content, dead properties, or (in the case
>    of a collection) membership of a resource, such as
>    PUT or PROPPATCH.
> 
> So restricting the DAV:write privilege in an activity
> resource's DAV:acl property doesn't restrict changes in
> that activity's DAV:activity-version-set or
> DAV:activity-checkout-set either.
> 
> Is my understanding correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Roy
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 13:51:52 GMT

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