Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: Localized baselines"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: esedlar@us.oracle.com (Eric Sedlar), ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <2000Feb17.102227.1250.1478963@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:23:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Members of a collection
<eric>
Wait, is there no way to ask a collection for only those members that would
be currently selected?
</eric>
Nope.
<eric>
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.
</eric>
<eric>
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>
Ah, now you're adding constraints (single-user) :-)
I agree that it is going to be bizzare for clients that expect all listed
members of a collection to be GET-able. Others have suggested a separate
return code to show the client's assumption was wrong--I think this goes
part way to appeasing the client, but I suspect they will still be confused.
It would be similarly bizzare for a collection to change it's apparent
members based on how the RSR selects (or not) it's members revisions; so I'm
prepared to live with the current situation.
Even without a "bug" in the RSR, it is perfectly valid (and likely) to have
resources that don't select a revision.
Tim