Next message: Jim Doubek: "Versioning Conf Call 5/8/2000 - Unreserved checkout flag for activities"
From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:48:31 -0700
Message-ID: <NDBBLFOFMCKOOMBDHDBKKEDKCAAA.esedlar@us.oracle.com>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
One of the big costs of maintaining versioned repositories is finding the
information on a particular revision, given the versioned resource. The
nice thing about a recursive snapshot of a versioned collection is that a
particular revision of a versioned collection can point directly to the
appropriate revision of its children, and avoid this step. In my opinion,
this will be critical to getting performance out of repositories used on
production systems. The old baseline concept allowed this implementation
optimization, and the new one does not.
--Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 10:00 PM
> To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
>
>
> A baseline is now a snapshot (i.e. version) of a workspace.
> If you create a workspace which contains
> a versioned collection and all of its
> members, a baseline of that workspace will be a recursive
> snapshot of that versioned collection. Is there something you
> wanted to do with versioned collections that this would not
> support?
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:esedlar@us.oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:57 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: DeltaV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
>
>
> OK Geoff, I have enough time to harass you about versioning again, so
> hopefully you can give me some pointers to some of the changes in the
> spec.
>
> What happened to the notion of a baseline being a recursive snapshot
> of a versioned collection? It now seems that the members of a baseline
> need not be adjacent in URL space, e.g. if I do a GET on /a/b/c/d
> with a baseline selected in my workspace, /a and /a/b/c might have
> particular revisions selected in the baseline, but not /a/b or
> /a/b/c/d.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
>
>