Re: DAV:baselines
jamsden@us.ibm.com
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:37:57 -0500
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525684D.00505FBE.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:37:57 -0500
Subject: Re: DAV:baselines
Geoff,
I think this is great. However, as I recall, the reason you wanted to
distinguish baselines from versioned configurations is that a versioned
configuration could be checked out and modified in such a way that it was
not a baseline of a versioned collection any longer. We also said that a
baseline wasn't a subclass of a configuration because it didn't have the
behavior for adding and removing members. However, I think we could stick
with this definition, and just refine the behavior for adding and removing
members to be private implementations of the create accessor for a baseline
(please excuse the OO speak, but you get my point). Now we have a new
DAV:resourcetype called DAV:baseline which is a DAV:configuration with the
additional behavior of how baselines are created, their semantics, and a
refinement of the add/remove member that makes them private and used to
create the baseline. Make sense?
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>@w3.org on 12/19/99
10:45:08 PM
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject: DAV:baselines
In the latest version of the protocol (deltav-01), I changed the
DAV:baselines property of a versioned collection from being a
versioned configuration to being a collection of revisions. Since
we are removing property collections, and since at least a couple
of folks objected to this change anyway, I'm planning on bringing
back the old definition, i.e. that DAV:baselines identifies a
versioned configuration.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Geoff