Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource"
Message-ID: <38F73334.6550774@marconicomms.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:03:16 +0200
From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource
Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
>
> From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
>
> Maybe a workspace should just be a collection? Note that if we do
> this, and have workspace revisions play the role of
> configurations/baselines, then you wouldn't be able to have
> configurations/workspace without versioned collections unless the
> server did special cases for workspaces.
> I guess we could do that if we *really* wanted to confuse people (:-).
I'm not sure. I also think similar to Jim. To the contrary, I feel
a little bit confused about the talk about activities and workspaces.
IMHO we can achieve already a lot by not introducing many new terms.
If we call a revision of a collection a configuration we already have
a lot of options.
If I want to work on a set of files I just do a checkout on a
versioned collection which contains them.
When I'm finished I just checkin all the files and collections I
worked on.
I don't say that workspaces and activities aren't needed for certain
stuff. But versionend collections are a more basic principle because
it's just an extension of versioning from atomic resources to
collections.
Then I have another question (Sorry if it was already discussed, but
the traffic in the mailing list is so high that I can't read all):
I edit a big file, only change a couple of bytes and do a checkin.
Can I just send some delta information to the server instead of
using all the bandwidth for my big file ?
Cheers, Edgar
--
Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com, Postf. 1920,D-71509 Backnang,07191/133382
Marconi Communications, Access Networks Development, Software Engineering
Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos ansehen wie er mag.
Niklaus Wirth. Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler A.Einstein