Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:00:29 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:00:29 -0800
Message-ID: <004001be7ca4$33a0a780$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:42 PM
To: ckaler@microsoft.com
Cc: jamsden@us.ibm.com; ejw@ics.uci.edu; dgd@cs.bu.edu;
bruce.Cragun@gw.novell.com; sridhar.iyengar@mv.unisys.com;
bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com; ABabich@filenet.com
Subject: Re: Version issues
From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
I think this is where Bruce and I disagree with you. We have
systems today that do this today and don't support the notion of
per-user views. Everyone shares the same view. I understand your
scalability concerns, but forcing clients to adopt a new paradigm, is
an unpleasant thought.
In order to avoid producing a protocol that has so many different ways
of achieving the same goal that nobody will implement more than some
random subset, we will all have to make significant compromises in how
closely
it maps to exactly the system we have running today.
I think we can point to a several examples of compromise.
A couple that immediately come to mind are:
- both Brad and I represent companies that are essentially branch-based.
We both are working towards a protocol that supports change-based and
branch-based versioning equally, even at the cost of less direct
support for branching.
- None of the CM vendors support "mutable versioning", but we have
agreed to make this a required part of the protocol.
I hope we can keep pushing for compromises in this way, to
keep the protocol clean and simple enough to be a sound basis
for web-based versioning. So like Jim, I'd prefer to see arguments
like "this won't solve the problem" or "this would be too expensive
to implement" than "that's not the way I do it today".
Cheers,
Geoff