RE: Comments on versioning protocol

From: Vasta, John (jvasta@Rational.Com)
Date: Fri, Jan 07 2000

  • Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Comments on versioning protocol"

    Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC018798D7@chef.lex.rational.com>
    From: "Vasta, John" <jvasta@Rational.Com>
    To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
    Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:33:12 -0500 
    Subject: RE: Comments on versioning protocol
    
    >    Does CHECKOUT really turn a versionable resource into a versioned
    >    resource? If so, it cannot create an initial revision 
    > which is a copy of
    >    the versionable resource, since it is still checked out 
    > (there won't be a
    >    revision until it is checked in).
    > 
    > Fixed this to say that an empty initial revision is created, and that
    > the versionable resource is copied into a new working resource.
    > We had a thread not too long ago about whether we should create a
    > null initial revision, or let you have an initial working resource 
    > that is not associated with any revision.  I'll go with the "null
    > initial revision" for now, but this is probably still an open issue.
    
    Another question: since only unversioned collections can contain unversioned
    resources, then all parent collections of any unversioned resource must be
    unversioned. So how do you version an unversioned resource? If you version
    the parent collection first, then you have a versioned collection containing
    unversioned resources. But you cannot version the children first, since they
    are in an unversioned collection.
    
    One way around this would be to say that versioning an unversioned
    collection is always treated as an infinite depth operation. Is that what
    was intended?
    
    >    5.1 Shouldn't a precondition of MKRESOURCE for 
    > versioned-resources be that
    >    the parent collection is checked out?
    > 
    > I'm tempted at the moment to just say that CHECKOUT is 
    > *always* used to
    > created versioned resources (and not MKRESOURCE).  Does anyone object?
    
    It seems strange to me to have a general MKRESOURCE method that cannot be
    applied to versioned resources, and that you can CHECKOUT a null resource.
    Why not just apply the same versioned-resource-creation semantics to
    MKRESOURCE as to any other resource creation method?
    
    John