W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2002

Antwort: RE: Problems with Windows XP "redirector" and Mac OS X WebDAVFS.

From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconi.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:06:10 +0200
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF06E27489.FB27CBDA-ONC1256BA7.003B76FA@uk.marconicomms.com>

Hi Stefan,
why are you so pessimistic ?
I would assume that most "safe save" algorithms will have a recognizable
like MOVE a -> b, PUT a, DELETE b.
So a clever autoversioning server could assume that b was a temporary file
can be thrown away (Also deleting the autoversioned history) and
autoversion a.
Or is this assuming too much and the behaviour can also be expected in the
by a DeltaV client ?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Edgar Schwarz

Edgar.Schwarz@marconi.com, Postf. 1920, D-71509 Backnang,+49 7191 13 3382,
Marconi Communications, Access Division, Quality and Process Improvement
Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos ansehen wie er mag
(Niklaus Wirth). Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler

                          "Clemm, Geoff"                                                                                         
                          <gclemm@rational.c        An:    "'ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>           
                          om>                       Kopie:                                                                       
                          Gesendet von:             Blindkopie:                                                                  
                          ietf-dav-versionin        Thema: RE: Problems with Windows XP "redirector" and Mac OS X WebDAVFS.      
                          26.04.2002 05:00                                                                                       

If the client first does a MOVE, then I agree there's not
much an auto-versioning server could reasonably do.

Just for interests sake, what is the motivation for
those libraries to do a <MOVE-to-temp1, PUT-to-temp2,
MOVE-to-real, DELETE-temp1> instead of the simpler
<PUT-to-temp, MOVE-temp-to-actual> ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]

Am Mittwoch den, 24. April 2002, um 14:49, schrieb Clemm, Geoff:

> One workaround that comes to mind is to interpret a MOVE from a
> non-version-controlled resource to a checked-out VCR as a COPY/DELETE.

First the good news: if you have a shell on OSX and do a
cp test.txt to /Volumes/dav/test.txt
where "dav" is a WebDAV mounted volumes, the webdav code
in OSX does basically a LOCK/PUT/UNLOCK on an existing
test.txt. So (auto)versioning will do the job.

However if you use the Finder or any Carbon/Cocoa Application,
some library code will do (on save in the GUI):
1) MOVE /Volumes/dav/test.txt /Volumes/dav/test~.txt
2) PUT  /Volumes/dav/data1234.txt
3) MOVE /Volumes/dav/data1234.txt /Volumes/dav/test.txt
4) DELETE /Volumes/dav/test~.txt

(modulo LOCK/UNLOCK)

I see no chance to keep any versioning on text.txt.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 07:06:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC