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

Re: baselines & namespaces

From: Alison Macmillan <alison.macmillan@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:34:01 +0000
Message-ID: <3C1E3A99.FAC19724@oracle.com>
To: gclemm@rational.com
CC: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
"Clemm, Geoff" wrote:

>
> If a server supports version-controlled collections, and if
> a version-controlled collection gave a name to a
> version history, and that version history is the root of a
> subbaseline, then that subbaseline is restored at that location.
> But otherwise, no, the protocol does not require a server to
> preserve anything about the relative locations of subbaselines.
>

Thanks for the reply.

I hadn't understood from the spec that the (collection) version-history should
imply a baseline, and so had not seen how the version-controlled-binding could
behave as a "baseline-binding".

So,  is the model that there is an association between a baseline and a
version-history, or between a baseline-history and a version-history, or
something else?

If there is an association between a baseline-history and a version-history, is
it constrained to be 1:1 (i.e. the baseline-history and version-history are two
aspects of the same collection - a collection that is both versioned, and the
root of a configuration)?

Do any additional pre- or post- conditions arise from the association?

For example, if /ws/col1 is a non-empty version-controlled collection, that is
baseline-controlled to create baseline /bl/1. Is it illegal to
baseline-control  /ws/col2, an _empty_ version-controlled collection, from
baseline /bl/1? Or does /ws/col2 simply become another name for /ws/col1?

Thanks,
Alison
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 The statements and opinions expressed here are my own
 and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 13:34:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:43 GMT