Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Questions on activities"
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200004210340.XAA25129@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource
From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com>
<gmc> Note that you don't send your updates back with a CHECKIN
request, but rather with a PUT request. The CHECKIN request just
tells the server to remember the current state of the resource as a
new revision. </gmc>
I think that delta stuff comes very natural in a versioning
context. Is there a more intuitive case for delta information than
in a CHECKIN <resource> <baseversion> <delta data> ?
A client does not track a baseversion (that's the servers job), and
commonly does not have a delta engine. Assuming the client did have a
delta engine and did track the delta against the value it got from the
server, why would you restrict this optimization to a CHECKIN? A client
will often do many PUT requests before it does a CHECKIN. Why
not optimize every PUT, rather than just the last one before a CHECKIN?
Cheers,
Geoff