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

RE: Workspaces, Baseline-Control und auto-version, MKCOL

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:30:37 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1056E139D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Tim Ellison [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]

   "Kirmse, Daniel" <daniel.kirmse@sap.com>

   > Suppose a workspace WS with uri /ws that is under baseline-
   > control and the auto-version property of the version controlled
   > configuration representing the baseline controlled workspace WS
   > is set to checkout-checkin.
   > Now suppose a MKCOL request on uri /ws/folder. With that
   > "directory" folder is created within the workspace WS. Does the
   > creation of this folder cause a new baseline to be created
   > within the baseline-history of the vcc representing WS?

   No.  Modifications to the resources making up the configuration are
   not considered modifications to the version-controlled
   configuration resource itself.  If they were, you would be able to
   lock an entire configuration etc. by locking this one resource.

Well, depends what you mean by "modification".  If it is a change that
results in a change to the DAV:checked-in property of any member of
the baseline controlled collection (e.g. CHECKIN, UPDATE, MERGE),
then it is considered a change to the
version-controlled configuration, and such a change MUST be
rejected unless the VCCn is checked out, or if auto-versioning is
appropriately set for the VCCn.

But if it is not a change to a version-controlled resource (such as
a MKCOL that creates a non-version-controlled collection), then
I agree that it is not a modification to the VCCn.

   > I assume it would do, if so is it a MUST or a SHOULD? From my
   > reading I assume MUST.

   I assume it would not.  Which part of the spec. are you referring to?

Note that the DAV:modify-configuration postconditions in sections 12.12,
12.13, and 12.14 define the semantics related to this question.

Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 08:31:40 UTC

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