Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:40:24 -0700
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: dbarrell@opentext.com, "'Slein, Judith A'" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>,
Cc: "Falkenhainer, Brian" <Brian.Falkenhainer@usa.xerox.com>,
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <000c01be8cde$d2294160$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
In-Reply-To: <01BE8CD7.936268F0.dbarrell@opentext.com>
Subject: RE: Version issues
> I would like to see the levels split even more than that. I believe that
> some of the configuration management functionality can be considered
> "minimal" in order to be useful and the rest should be optional.
>
> Has this forum had a detailed discussion on the levels of the versioning
> protocol? If not I think the time has come.
So, the problem with just adding another level is that each level
exponentially adds to the possible client/server interactions. With two
levels, you need to consider level 1 client vs level 1 server, level 1
client vs. level 2 server, level 2 client vs level 1 server, and level 2
client vs level 2 server. With three levels, there are now 9 possible
permutations, not just four.
The other difficulty is developing a configuration management layer where
the abstractions are so easily separable that a third layer can easily be
defined.
Did you have any thoughts on what features should be in this minimal
configuration management layer, and which features should be excluded? Or
was this just a general concern that the design might be getting too
complex?
- Jim