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

RE: error condition for delete of VHR when VCR is in checked-in c ollection

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:09:44 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10776104D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]

   >    > If you've deleted the version history, you have effectively
   >    > trashed any historical references (e.g. in collection
   >    > versions) to that version history.
   >
   >    Nope. I have deleted the binding to the version history, not
   >    necessarily the information itself. In particular, my server
   >    may be able to reconstruct it upon UNCHECKOUT of the versioned
   >    collection "/a" (using the same URI).
   >
   > I'm not sure how an UNCHECKOUT of a VCCl is related to this
   > thread, since an UNCHECKOUT request has no effect on a version
   > history resource.  But in any case, postcondition
   > DAV:delete-version-set in Section 5.6 states that deleting a
   > version history resource deletes all versions in that version
   > history.  So your server would not be able to reconstruct the
   > version history once it was deleted.  Note that the errata issue
   > 14_DIFFERENT_VH_DELETION_SEMANTICS_REQUIRED clarifies that
   > deleting a member of a working collection just removes a binding
   > to a VHR, but doesn't delete the VHR.

   My theories goes like this :-)

   - by checking in a VCC that contains a VCR member, I am effectively
   creating a new binding to the VHR of this VCR member. This binding
   may not be visible in my "public" URL namespace, but it's still
   there

I try to reserve the term "binding" for the sense in which it is
used in the Bind protocol, namely the connection between a collection
and one of its internal members.  In that sense, checking in a VCC
never creates a binding to a VHR, but rather just creates a reference
to the VHR in its DAV:version-controlled-binding-set property
(i.e. it doesn't create a new name for that VHR, but just uses an
existing name to create a reference).

   - a subsequent delete on the VHR URL just deletes the original binding to
   the VHR, but the version history resource (and the versions inside the
   version history) is not affected

Since the DAV:version-controlled-binding-set just has a reference to
that VHR using its server-assigned URL, if you DELETE that URL, you
break all references to that VHR from the DAV:v-c-b-s properties of
collection versions.

   - thus, upon UNCHECKOUT of the VCC, I can reconstruct the VHR
   (re-creating the original binding)

The members of the VCC also refer to the VHR via the server-assigned
URL, so even if UNCHECKOUT could restore the version-controlled
member of the VCC, the DAV:version-history property of that member
would contain the VHR URL that was deleted.

   Maybe these problems go away when we remove connection between
   deleting the VHR and un-versioning a resource, but this is how it
   looks right now.

Deleting a VHR to "un-version" a resource is fine; it's just
restoring it which is a problem.

   >    > If you are going to let that deletion
   >    > happen even when there is a VCR for that version history in
   >    > some workspace, I don't see that it makes any sense to worry
   >    > about whether or not the collection containing that VCR is
   >    > checked in or checked out.
   >
   >    The issue is that RFC3253 doesn't define a method to switch off
   >    version control on a resource, and therefore people are using
   >    deletion on VHRs to switch off versioning (I couldn't find any
   >    mention of this in the spec, though).
   >
   > I don't recall hearing of this approach, and don't see how it could be
   > compatible with the spec, giving the DAV:delete-version-set
   > postcondition.

   OK. It was originally suggested in section 4.2 of
   draft-dusseault-deltav-subset-00 [1], and up until some time ago,
   it made a lot of sense to me.

   Clarification: people use deletion of the VHR to both delete the
   VHR and un-version-control the VCR. How would that violate the
   DELETE sematics for VHRs?

OK, I think I see where things may have gotten confused.
The approach I was referring to (i.e. the one I didn't recall hearing
about) was not the "unversion by delete VHR" approach (which I do
remember), but rather the "restore by UNCHECKOUT".  If you are
willing to permanently destroy the history for that resource, I 
agree that deleting the VHR is a reasonable/interoperable way to do so.

   >    This conflates to separate things, but there doesn't seem to
   >    be better way to do it (please don't say COPY/DELETE/MOVE,
   >    because this creates a *new* resource).
   >
   > COPY/DELETE/MOVE is the only interoperable way of removing
   > something from version control.  If you need a mechanism that
   > doesn't create a new resource, I'd suggest something like
   > allowing a PROPPATCH to remove the DAV:version-history property
   > of the VCR, rather than trying anything related to VHR deletion.

   Sounds good, and we'll look into this.

Note: As indicated above, if you are willing to permanently destroy
the history, deleting the VHR is a good interoperable way of taking
a resource out of version control.  The PROPPATCH proposal is only
needed if you want to retain the history while un-version-controlling
the resource.

   However, I now have a new question:

   If - after the deletion of a VCR's VHR - the VCR is still
   version-controlled - where does it's DAV:version-history property
   point to?  Similarily, if the delete of the VHR deleted all
   versions, where does DAV:checked-in/DAV:checked-out point to?

I agree that the simplest model for deleting the VHR would be to
un-version-control any VCR for that history, and remove any entries
in DAV:version-controlled-binding-set that refer to that VHR.
Alternatively, the server could just keep all those references,
and return errors on all versioning operations, but that would
leave things in a pretty broken state.

   -> Seems that we need to clarify the post-conditions for deletions
   of VHRs, right?

It sounds like we actually agree on this one ... it was just the
"restore via UNCHECKOUT" that was confusing things.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 08:10:17 GMT

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