Re: Configurations: A Compromise Proposa
jamsden@us.ibm.com
Mon, 10 May 1999 09:25:15 -0400
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525676D.0049D6FA.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 09:25:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Configurations: A Compromise Proposa
I meant *not* useful. Sorry for the confusion. See below.
jamsden@us.ibm.com on 05/10/99 07:23:41 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc: (bcc: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM)
Subject: Re: Configurations: A Compromise Proposa
From a previous note:
configuration? When the configuration is checked in? Lets do the
simplest, safest case for now, and extend it later. That's when the
configuration is checked in because it ensures all revisions are taken
from the current workspace and can be known to be consistent.
It is simple and safe to do the recursive addition when the resource
cannot be modified after it is created (such as a baseline), but it
is also simple and safe to allow you to modify the resource, and *not*
do any recursive adding or subtracting (such as a configuration).
But I don't think putting a collection in a configuration without recursively
adding its members is *not* useful. Also, I did mean that this was done all at
once as
with a snapshot. If a user wants finer grained control, then the members of the
various collections can be put in individually instead of through a parent.