W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Notes from DAV WG meeting

From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:29:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4FD6422BE942D111908D00805F3158DF0A7573D4@RED-MSG-52>
To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

I think that it makes sense to have configuration management as an optional
layer on basic versioning, however, the mail below would make one think of
CM and versioning as inherently different beasts.  I do not believe that is
true, and if you look at many of the versioning products available today,
the line between CM and basic versioning is hard to draw.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran [mailto:sv@crystaliz.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 1998 5:23 AM
To: Larry Masinter; WebDAV WG
Subject: Re: Notes from DAV WG meeting


>I objected to the assertion that versioning was "not very
>useful" without configuration management, since there are
>many contexts where that is not true, including in
>software development and web-site management.

Fair enough.

>Since it seems that DA-SL-V-CM is attempting to build a layered
>architecture (Distributed Authoring + Search Language +
>Versioning + Configuration Management ), it might well
>make sense to separate the Configuration Management layer
>from the Versioning layer.

From a "functionality" based argument, I support what you say. I was not
involved in the debate, so it is hard for me to say what the rationale of
others were. However, from a protocol perspective, I cannot wrap my mind
around how versioning is going to be supported independent of configuration
management when Web-DAV allows nested collections with members. Isn't
configuration management really about addressing the problem of members and
collections evolving independently of each other (i.e., be versioned)? Maybe
somebody can help answer this question.

Received on Monday, 31 August 1998 16:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:17 UTC