Re: Version issues

Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:08:32 -0800 

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:08:32 -0800
Message-ID: <005401be7ca5$5333bbe0$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Kaler (Exchange) [mailto:ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 12:08 AM
To: 'Geoffrey M. Clemm'
Cc: jamsden@us.ibm.com; ejw@ics.uci.edu; dgd@cs.bu.edu;
Cragun.Bruce@gw.novell.com; bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com
Subject: RE: Version issues


I have two concerns that I'll just keep plugging :-)

1) I want to be able to have multilpe checkouts.  The current
   discussions, I believe, require me to have two workspaces.

2) As we have defined a workspace, it can consume valuable server
   resources.  My concern is that I use a workspace as a token
   and the client is happy, but the server starts to die because
   of resource depletion.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 9:54 PM
To: Chris Kaler (Exchange)
Cc: jamsden@us.ibm.com; ejw@ics.uci.edu; dgd@cs.bu.edu;
Cragun.Bruce@gw.novell.com; bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com
Subject: Re: Version issues



The protocol will let you treat a workspace as merely a checkout token
(with no revision-selection-rule).  The only exception is the default
workpace, which has a single revision selection rule indicating how
you want the default revision computed.  A server can make this
default workspace revision selection rule read-only, so that the
server doesn't have to implement more than one built-in default
revision selection rule (e.g. "label=default").

How does this require any more from the server than you already
have it provide?

Cheers,
Geoff


   From: "Chris Kaler (Exchange)" <ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

   If I want to view a document store as a file system, I don't care
   about workspaces.  I want to version my documents, like I do, say
   in the VMS file system.  I don't want to think about workspaces.

   If I am tracking the information on the client I don't necessarily 
   want it tracked on the server.  I might have a good reason, e.g., I
   don't want to waste server resources or time.

   The model needs to accommodate these.

   Chris
   -----Original Message-----
   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
   Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 10:33 AM
   To: Chris Kaler (Exchange)
   Cc: jamsden@us.ibm.com; gclemm@atria.com; ejw@ics.uci.edu;
   dgd@cs.bu.edu; Cragun.Bruce@gw.novell.com;
   sridhar.iyengar@mv.unisys.com; Chris Kaler (Exchange);
   bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com; ABabich@filenet.com
   Subject: RE: Version issues




   [CK2] Two points - and they represent different customer segments.
	 (1) This isn't my model.  I have lots of unrelated documents
	     and, as a level 1 client app, this complicates everything.
	 (2) There are cases, NT for example, where workspaces will have
	     real scalability problems.  I may want/need to manage the
	     state on the client not the server.
   How do workspaces complicate things and for whom? I agree they make a
   little more work for servers to do the revision selection, but I think
it's
   better to have that complexity in the server not the many clients that
   access the server. You get much better reuse and simplify what clients
and
   users have to do. Isn't that a good thing?

   Also, just because there's workspaces doesn't mean a client can't
implement
   its own model with labels, properties, other resource types, etc.
   Workspaces aren't a restriction for clients, they're a service.