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

RE: 3.5: VERSION-CONTROL response codes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:32:41 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEMCFIAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: 3.5: VERSION-CONTROL response codes
>
>
> Could you motivate why we would want to do this?

Sure.

1) Consistency with HTTP: requests that create new resources should return a
201.

2) Consistence with deltaV (defining DAV:version-control-response as
optional response body)

3) Performance: I've seen many cases where after a version-control, a client
would like to access either the checked-in version or the VHR -- in which
case it currently needs an additional PROPFIND.

> (I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it is additional
> text that would need to be added to the protocol definition,
> and we've got a lot of text already :-).
> In particular, this information is easily obtainable
> with a subsequent PROPFIND (and even a streaming PROPFIND,
> i.e. you can issue the PROPFIND without waiting for
> the VERSION-CONTROL to succeed).

It's still an additional request and doesn't come for free. In general, a
server will have to do another call to it's backend to get this information.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 10:33:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:44 GMT