Re: A question on Versioning-unaware cl

Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:39:04 -0400 

From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com (Chris Kaler Exchange),
Message-ID: <1999Oct07.133600.1250.1345302@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:39:04 -0400
Subject: RE: A question on Versioning-unaware cl


<chris>
     It is a question of interoperability with existing protocols.
     Today, HTTP and FTP (for example), interoperate.
</chris>

<tim expression="puzzled">
Just humor me for a moment...

HTTP and FTP don't interoperate.  Nothing written using HTTProtocol has 
anything to do with FTProtocol.

I admit, that they typically share the same files on a disk and thereby 
share data, so you can 'put' with FTP and 'get' with HTTP, but that's not 
the protocols interoperating, that's merely a shared disk.
</tim>

<chris>
     When the HTTP portion supports WebDAV versioning,
     there is now an interop problem.  Although this is outside
     of the scope of this effort, I think we will avoid lots of
     questions and problems down the road if specify an
     interop story.  The one I proposed seems simple and
     not burdensome on the server.
</chris>

<tpe>
I agree that adding in versioning means that it is very unlikely that the 
server will store resources in a file structure that would be meaningful to 
an FTP user.

.. but I could write a VxD to make it look like a file system, and no you 
wouldn't have versioning commands in FTP, but then again you don't have POST 
and HEAD either!

I feel that I'm either missing the point, being pedantic, or perhaps I'm 
just out to lunch<g>
</tpe>