- From: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:41:56 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Julian,
On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>> ...
>> Hmm, I think so. The definition in a sense implies that the version
>> is created as a result of the modification. Which is IMHO *never*
>> the case for working copies.
>> Surely the draft must define 'working copy'. What is the nature of
>> a working copy? What is its true nature? I think: being *used* for
>> creating new versions. So, what about:
>>>>> "A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can
>>>>> be *used* to create a new version of a versioned resource."
>> ...
>
> So, substituting "modified" by "used". I'm ok with that.
Fine.
>
>> and remove checkout/checkin completely. ('use' instead of 'modify'
>> sounds less like "The modification cause the versioning" (which it
>> never does by nature of a working copy (IMHO - s.a.))
>> If the draft wanted to define it, then it woud be something like:
>> checkout: an operation on a resource that creates a working copy
>> checkin: an operation on a working copy that creates a new version
>> of its corresponding versioned resource.
>
> The issue here is that in some systems, checkout will not create a
> new resource, just flip a bit on the versioned resource.
>
> Also, (I think) there are systems where checking in does not create
> a new version, but flips a bit on the working resource *making* it a
> version (at the same URL).
>
> Thus, defining this would need to be defined in a more generic way.
> My attempt:
>
> "Checkout: an operation on a versioned resource that creates a
> working copy, or changes the versioned resource to be a working-copy
> as well ("in-place versioning").
>
> Checkin: an operation on a working copy that creates a new version of
> its corresponding versioned resource.
>
> Note: the operations for putting a resource under version control,
> and for checking in and checking out depend on the protocol in use
> and are beyond the scope of this document; see [CMIS], [RFC3253] and
> [JSR-283] for details)."
Sounds good to me.
Jan
>
> Best regards, Julian
--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen
Mail: algermissen@acm.org
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 06:42:39 UTC