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

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

From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:10:13 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0C5133CD.522330CB-ON80256B3E.00583C32@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:

>    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.

Ok, that is clear.  Apologies to Daniel for my misleading response. That 
is not how I remembered it.

I'm left wondering why this is so.  On the face of it, these 
postconditions mean that where a baseline-controlled collection has a 
checked-in version-controlled configuration there is a guarantee that the 
membership of the configuration (rooted at the baseline-controlled 
collection) is the same as that represented by the checked-in 
version-controlled configuration -- however, that only covers the 
checked-in version-controlled members of the configuration ... there can 
be variance by non-version-controlled members and/or checked-out 
version-controlled members.  So what is the value of this postcondition?

Regards,
Tim
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 11:10:49 GMT

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