Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "Re: Uncheckout"
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005191256.IAA07003@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: UNCHECKOUT
Upon further reflection, I will place my vote on keeping UNCHECKOUT.
I believe the semantics of CHECKIN should be:
"remember the current state in the history of this resource"
DAV:overwrite and DAV:keep-checked-out and DAV:private all satisfy
this semantics, but "uncheckout" would not.
Cheers,
Geoff
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:56:15 +0200
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
--
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