Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Re: Labels"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <2000Feb17.101159.1250.1478927@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:13:18 -0500
Subject: RE: Members of a collection
Adding status codes puts this condition 'in your face', that is a good thing
or a bad thing depending upon your point of view. As a server kind of guy I
like it, but clients may not.
Tim
----------
>From: Clemm, Geoff
>To: ietf-dav-versioning
>Subject: RE: Members of a collection
>Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:02PM
>
>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
>>
>
>