Re: draft of CHECKOUT method
jamsden@us.ibm.com
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:02:14 -0400
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256809.006E398F.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:02:14 -0400
Subject: RE: draft of CHECKOUT method
Bradley Sergeant <Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com> on 10/13/99 03:51:11 PM
To: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
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.)
<jra>
CHECKOUT, PROPFIND doesn't sound like that much overhead. The UNCHECKOUT is
conditional.
</jra>
--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>