Re: Version issues
Sankar Virdhagriswaran (sv@crystaliz.com)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 21:02:52 -0500
Message-ID: <00b101be7cad$20d0e4e0$e6ea7392@honeybee>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@crystaliz.com>
To: <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "Versioning" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 21:02:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Version issues
Folks,
Lots of interesting discussion seems to have happened and I wish it had
happened in the open versioning discussion list. It is hard to catch up on
all this mail. Some top level comments:
a) Please use email clients that use explicit characters (e.g., >>) to
indent or personally bracket the comments with open and close brackets
rather than use tabs. It is very hard to get consistent behavior across
email clients with tabs.
b) Keep the volume up !! I think the discussion was interesting and very
illuminating.
c) Given the volume, I may have missed some thing, but I am not able to see
Chris Kaler's point. His market based argument seems to be that existing
clients will be ruled out if we go with the workspace proposal.
Hmmm....since DELTA-V is a new protocol wouldn't these clients have to be
rewritten anyhow? I am confused as to how they can be ruled out. Also, Chris
seems to be saying that some how the end user interaction model will be
affected if 'workspaces' are introduced for level 1 clients. OK. But, I have
not seen a description of the end user interaction model that these clients
use to make a judgement. Again, I may have missed it.
d) I am not for 3 levels. For market and engineering reasons, I think it is
a bad idea. In fact, I have argued that the current activity functionality
being discussed does not cover compound changes. But, that does not mean we
should have a level 4 (given people are pushing for 3 levels now).
And, I agree with the following statement excerpted from Jim's message.
<excerpt>
> <jra>
> This is exactly the point. Distributed web application development isn't
> about one specific revision of a specific resource along a specific line
of
> descent. Clients with checkout tokens just won't scale. Context needs to
be
> shared across many related resources, revisions, and logical changes. This
> simplifies clients by having servers support richer versioning semantics.
> Experience with WebDAV lock tokens also indicates this is a poor client
> model, one I don't think we want to promote.
> </jra>
</excerpt>