Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: Adding a DAV:default-revision prope"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256888.0052B193.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:02:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Members of a collection
Eric,
The solution to your problem below is to use versioned collections. Then
one's workspace revision selection rule would select an appropriate
revision of a collection and of its members, perhaps through a baseline or
configuration. Without versioned collections, it would be very difficult to
predict what members of a collection might be visible at some point in time
based on the workspace RSR.
|--------+---------------------------------->
| | "Eric Sedlar" |
| | <esedlar@us.oracle.com> |
| | Sent by: |
| | ietf-dav-versioning-requ|
| | est@w3.org |
| | |
| | |
| | 02/16/2000 11:25 PM |
| | |
|--------+---------------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, |
| <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org> |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re: Members of a collection |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------|
Wait, is there no way to ask a collection for only those members that would
be currently selected? If I use ClearCase, I never have this problem. I
think that will be what users most frequently want, and I don't think we
want to wait for DASL to handle this important query.
I also disagree with Tim's claim that this is the same as a DELETE
happening
while you weren't paying attention. Let's take the case where I know that
I'm the only person operating in a particular section of the URL hierarchy
(I have my own virtual single-user system). Clearly, I know that no delete
has occurred, yet I'm seeing garbage in my directories because I have a bug
in my currently selected RSR's.
--Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: Members of a collection
> I agree that this is not a problem, but it might be worth
> having a couple of special status codes, i.e.:
> 4xx (No Such Revision)
> 4xx (No Such Working Resource)
> and then reserve 404 for when there is no versioned resource
> (or any other resource) at that URL. What do folks think?
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 5:05 PM
> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: Members of a collection
> >
> >
> >
> > To determine the members of a collection on a versioning
> > server, a client
> > issues a PROPFIND. In a non-versioning world if you are told
> > that /foo/ has
> > a member /foo/bar then you have a pretty good chance that you can GET
> > /foo/bar. However, in a versioning world your workspace may
> > not select any
> > revision of /foo/bar, so you 'see' that /foo/ has a /foo/bar
> > but you get a
> > 404 when you try to GET /foo/bar.
> >
> > This is going to be particularly interesting for 'browser'
> > type applications
> > that reveal one layer of the namespace at a time. However, I
> > claim that
> > this is no different than a non-versioning server showing its
> > members, then
> > a member being DELETEd before the client GETs it. One
> > difference is that
> > the versioning anomaly is more likely to happen.
> >
> > Just an observation.
> > Tim
> >
>
>