Re: draft of CHECKOUT method
Bradley Sergeant (Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com)
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:51:11 -0700
Message-ID: <F3B2A0DB2FC1D211A511006097FFDDF53438A9@BEAVMAIL>
From: Bradley Sergeant <Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com>
To: "'jamsden@us.ibm.com'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:51:11 -0700
Subject: RE: draft of CHECKOUT method
The query is a separate issue from the control issue. I agree the query of
other working resources for a revision should be done in PROFIND and not
returned by CHECKOUT. But I disagree that you want to force users to
CHECKOUT, PROPFIND, UNCHECKOUT for each resource that is already in use.
This a lot of overhead for both the client and the server. (Note that
PROPFIND, CHECKOUT is not sufficient due to race conditions.)
--Sarge
-----Original Message-----
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:26 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft of CHECKOUT method
<john>
Couldn't the query be done after the checkout, to see whether theirs is the
only checkout? Or were you proposing that the checkout fail? Otherwise, it
seems as if a post-checkout query would do what you wish for the clients
that
are interested, without making all clients pay the price.
</john>
<jra>
Good point John. Do the checkout, see if you want to continue, and
uncheckout if
not. Then we wouldn't need to add more control couples to checkout.
</jra>