W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1997

RE: Requirements Changes for Your Review

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:17:23 -0700
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502D2DB70@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Sankar Virdhagriswaran'" <sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com>, "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Versioned Stores Vs. Non-Versioned Stores: We are doing both. The issue
was only if a server had to support versioning in order to be compliant
with the standard. I was explaining that we had always agreed that there
would be different levels of DAV compliance. One level would not support
versioning, another would.

Email - I believe we should take e-mail needs into consideration.
However I also believe that we should not constrain our decisions based
on e-mail's needs.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sankar Virdhagriswaran [SMTP:sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 20, 1997 6:09 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland; 'Judith Slein'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Requirements Changes for Your Review
> 
> >> 3. Locking Model: Must servers support the WebDAV versioning model
> in
> >> its
> >> complete generality? (5.9.1.3)
> >> 
> >> [Yaron Goland]  I am not familiar with anyone who has stated that a
> >> base level DAV server must support versioning. It has always been
> the
> >> case that we would provide different levels of functionality, at
> >> minimum between versioning and non-versioning systems.
> 
> Yaron's point does not make sense to me. Maybe I am confused?
> Versioned
> stores vs. non versioned stores has a fundamental impact on naming and
> identity of objects. Therefore, I would think this is a fundamental
> decision. Either we are going to do versioned stores or not. Perhaps I
> am
> missing something.
> 
> >> So language such as "advisory lock" should disappear.
> 
> While I agree with Yaron's sentiment about where implementation
> specifications should appear, I do not want to see the notion of
> "locks
> that are advisory" disappear. We think of all types of locks as
> advisory
> only. When a lock is violated, what happens is a policy notion and can
> be
> implemented in different ways given the state of the doucment-object
> and
> state of transaction that is trying to break the lock. Therefore, I do
> want
> to see advisory locks in place at a different place in the doucment
> perhaps.
> 
> >> types of objects to the Web: links, collections, version graphs,
> etc.
> 
> I am trying to find where the etc. is defined. Can you point to a
> document
> segment that describes the new object model. I am sure we will have
> something to say about it.
> 
> >> [Yaron Goland]  If we need to do something that breaks e-mail, so
> be
> >> it. We are not about distributed authoring over e-mail. We are
> about
> >> distributed authoring over HTTP. It is very nice to keep in
> >> consideration e-mail issues but we should not randomize the group
> by
> >> requiring ourselves to maintain interoperability. The last
> requirement
> >> should be removed.
> 
> I agree with this sentiment. However, a requirement a store and
> forward
> transport scheme such as email system may be used to address is
> consistency
> maintenance in replicated versioned stores. We would like to see this
> requirement be considered.
> 
> Sankar Virdhagriswaran			p. no: 508 371 0404
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 1997 21:17:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT