Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "Re: Locking a workspace"
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-ID: <OFFAE4AAFC.99FE4CDC-ON852568EF.005235EF@ott.oti.com>
From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:58:27 -0400
Subject: Re: If: header and "parent" resource checking
I agree that both of these cases are important.
Tim
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
29-05-00 11:24 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
cc:
Subject: Re: If: header and "parent" resource checking
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
What does everyone else think? Do we need locking and versioning
together?
We're trying to make them work together, and leverage locking semantics
whenever possible. But it hasn't been easy, and its cost us some
flexibility.
This question has two parts:
- If you are writing a versioning client, do you care whether your
versioning server gives you any locking capability (and if so, should
it be compatible with locking defined for non-versioning servers)?
- If you are writing a versioning server, do you care that versioning
unaware locking clients work against your server?
In my case, I care about the former, to control access of multiple
clients to the same working resource, and I care about the latter,
because there are some very important versioning unaware locking clients.
Cheers,
Geoff