Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "RE: Locking"
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 07:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005191137.HAA06915@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
CHECKOUT is a method that is applied to a versioned resource whose
target is a revision, while CHECKIN is a method that is applied to a
versioned resource whose target is a working resource.
So if we make UNCHECKOUT a variant of an existing method, I believe it
would be more consistent for it to be a variant of CHECKIN, not of CHECKOUT.
Note that there is precedent for a CHECKIN not producing a new revision
(i.e. DAV:overwrite).
Cheers,
Geoff
From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com>
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:
>
> From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
>
> Do we really need a method for UNCHECKOUT?
> How about a check-in policy of <DAV:uncheckout/>
>
> I made that change in one of the earlier drafts, but as I recall, Jim
> Amsden strenuously objected.
>
> I personally would be more than happy to make it be a
> checkin policy, since it is no more strange than "keep-checked-out"
> or "overwrite".
It sounds logical to have a UNCHECKOUT to abort the actions of a checkout.
OTOH we shouldn't inflate the number of our methods.
I also would be content if there would be something like:
CHECKOUT policy abort (without caring about XML syntax)
But this shouldn't be a checkin-policy.
^^^^^^^ :-)
Cheers, Edgar