Re: nested configurations
Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Fri, 7 May 1999 15:05:49 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 15:05:49 -0400
Message-Id: <9905071905.AA08754@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <8525674C.004B963B.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: nested configurations
From an old message:
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
I believe it is an error for a configuration to contain a member that has
no selected revision in the current workspace *when* the configuration
snapshot method is invoked. It might not have a mapping at any other time,
but that's OK. The effect of the error may not be to remove the member
though, so we get the flexibility you want and the notification I think
users will expect. Otherwise we run the risk of putting a URL in a
configuration expecting to get some revision when we use the configuration
in an RSR at some future time. The best case is that you'll get resource
not found when you attempt to access this URL using the configuration. The
worse case is that the workspace might select some other, inconsistent
revision because of some other revision selector in the RSR without you
knowing it. This is not in the spirit of how configurations are used and
feels a little like mutable configurations as the revision selected might
change even though the configuration has the URL as a member.
As a minor point, I'd note that this issue does not arise in the
case of the configuration/baseline proposal, since a configuration
is just a set of revisions explicitly manipulated by the user
(independent of the workspace), while a baseline is checked-out
into a workspace and therefore *must* be visible in the workspace.
In neither case is there an opportunity for this error to arise.
Cheers,
Geoff