Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "Re: UNCHECKOUT"
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF1AC8237.DF0385A1-ON852568E4.0047232C@ott.oti.com>
From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:00:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Uncheckout
I can see arguments for it both ways (CHECKIN/CHECKOUT).
I guess that I assumed CHECKOUT was the place to put it, since CHECKOUT has
remarkably similar (protocol) semantics to UNCHECKOUT.
Either way...
Tim
Edgar Schwarz
<Edgar.Schwarz@marconico To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
mms.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
ietf-dav-versioning-requ
est@w3.org
19-05-00 04:56 AM
"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