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

RE: baselines & namespaces

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:34:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1052ADE52@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Alison Macmillan [mailto:alison.macmillan@oracle.com]

   "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.

   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".

A collection version history definitely does not imply a baseline.
But if a server supports both version-controlled collections and
baselines, then if a baseline B1 selects collection version CV2 (say
with name "x/y" relative to the root of B1), and if CV2 has a
version-controlled binding named "z" to the collection version history
CVH3, and if B1 has a subbaseline B2, and if the root of B2 is a
version of CVH3, then subbaseline B2 will be located at "x/y/z"
relative to the root of B1.

   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?

There is an association, but it is the:
baseline (selects) collection version (has binding to)
collection version history (has version)
collection version (root of) subbaseline
 
   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)?

This is not required by the protocol.

   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?

Your server could do it either way.  We could constrain it to be
one way or the other, but I think that might intrude on issues
that might conflict with alternative implementation techniques.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 22:34:47 GMT

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