Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: stable URL's"
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005300243.WAA22952@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Workspaces as versionable resources
From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
Once we removed dynamic revision selection from workspaces,
a workspace provided all the functionality of a configuration,
so there was no reason to have two different resource types
(i.e. you can create a configuration, but it's now called
a "workspace").
<tim>
Adding a collection to a configuration was a shallow operation (i.e., the
configuration could contain 'holes' in the namespace).
</tim>
The same is true for workspaces. You can put a revision of a collection
in a workspace, but put no revision of it's members. That workspace
would return whatever 4xx we use for "no revision selected" if you
were to ask for one of those members (just as a configuration would have).
The way you create a deep revision of a collection
is to place that collection in a workspace, and then
create a baseline for that workspace. So a deep revision
of a collection is called a "baseline".
<tim>
Here the implication is that creating a baseline is a deep operation
(i.e., all reachable resources from root). In this definition, a baseline
will offer a 'deep revision' of a collection, but does not provide for a
configuration.
I'm not sure why I would want configuration anyway, though I can image
others would.
</tim>
See above. A baseline is a "deep revision" only if the workspace selects
revisions of all the members. So a baseline is as deep or shallow as you
want to make it (based on what revisions you have selected for that workspace).
Cheers,
Geoff