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

RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:42:45 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEINFHAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collectionsOk,

that other case didn't occur me because we have deprecated the label header,
and thus we don't implement it.

I think the multistatus format is fine, it's just not entirely clear what
"modified by the request" means in case of a versioned collection.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
[mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:31 PM
  To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
  Subject: RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections


  The other case would be with Depth and labels
  (see section 8.5).  So the marshalling for UPDATE
  was defined with those two cases in mind (i.e. when
  multiple resources could be affected by an UPDATE).

  We could have defined UPDATE to return DAV:multistatus
  only if there were multiple resources affected by the
  UPDATE, but it was thought simpler to just always require
  the multistatus (probably not a big deal either way,
  but that was where we ended up).

  Cheers,
  Geoff

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:24 PM
  To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
  Subject: RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections



  Hmm.

  Let's phrase it differently: in the absence of the baseline feature, is
there any case where an update for a version controlled collection would
affect the state of more than one resource (being the collection itself)?

  Julian
  --
  <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
  -----Original Message-----
  From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
[mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:09 PM
  To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
  Subject: RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections



  Why do we need an errata entry?  The question is whether removing a
  binding to a resource is considered a modification to the
  resource, or a modification to the collection containing the
  binding.  For the purposes of UPDATE, I believe it should be
  considered a modification to the collection containing the
  binding only.
  The "move" (lower case) I was referring to was a multi-resource
  update that would result from a labeled update, or a baseline update.
  Such a multi-resource update could result in a logical move of
  a subtree from one URL to another.
  Cheers,
  Geoff
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:54 PM
  To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
  Subject: RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections



  Well,
  in this case we would have an erratum for 7.1:
  "The response for a successful request MUST be a 207 Multi-Status, where
the
  DAV:multistatus XML element in the response body identifies all resources
  that have been modified by the request."
  I also don't understand the second part of your reply -- we're talking
about
  response marshalling for UPDATE, not MOVE. What am I missing?
  Julian
  --
  <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
  -----Original Message-----
  From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
  [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:25 PM
  To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
  Subject: RE: UPDATE responses for versioned collections



  I would expect the latter, i.e. just the fact that the
  versioned collection had changed.  The client would then
  look at the DAV:version-controlled-binding-set of the
  DAV:checked-in version of the collection to see how it
  should update its local state (it needs to do that to
  differentiate a delete/add from a move).
  One benefit of this approach is that it doesn't cause
  a flood of responses if you move a folder with 1000
  members (i.e. it would return just the source and destination
  collections of the move, rather that 1000 added entries
  and 1000 deleted entries).
  Cheers,
  Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:43:12 GMT

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