Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:09:45 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:09:45 -0800
Message-ID: <005801be7ca5$7f448e80$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 7:09 AM
To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
Cc: ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com; ejw@ics.uci.edu; dgd@cs.bu.edu;
Cragun.Bruce@gw.novell.com; bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com
Subject: Re: Version issues
I would have said this differently. Your client *has* to use
workspaces, since that's the only way to refer to a working-resource.
But (except for the default workspace) a workspace need be no more
than a checkout-token.
Cheers,
Geoff
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS
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,
ckaler@microsoft.com, bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com,
ABabich@filenet.com
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:39:15 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Lines: 72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 2666
If your client doesn't want to use workspaces, that's fine. Just never
create workspaces and specify a label on all access to versioned
resources.
If you do this, then the default workspace wouldn't be used either. Your
client can organize the labels any way it wants including implementing
something like a workspace in order to provide the proper revision label
for each URL. There's nothing in our current model that prevents this or
requires that you use workspaces. Non-versioning aware clients will have
to
use the default workspace though as they can't specify revisions with
labels.
"Chris Kaler (Exchange)" <ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com> on 03/15/99
01:47:04 PM
To: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM
cc: gclemm@atria.com, ejw@ics.uci.edu, dgd@cs.bu.edu,
Cragun.Bruce@gw.novell.com, sridhar.iyengar@mv.unisys.com,
bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com, ABabich@filenet.com
Subject: RE: Version issues
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.